JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Apollo 11 engines found and recovered from 4km deep

 

Hey, Moon Landing Deniers… here’s an interesting tid-bit and an epic project. The historic engines that propelled Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on their trip to the moon (with Michael Collins orbiting above them) have not only been found but recovered. These F-1 engines fell back to Earth at 5,000 miles per hour and sank four kilometers underwater in the Atlantic. (The Apollo 11 crew splashed down later in the Pacific on July 24, 1969.)

It was not immediately clear when or where the objects might be displayed, but Mr Bezos said when he launched the project last year that he hoped they could be viewed at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington.

The engines that rocketed astronaut Neil Armstrong and his crew toward the moon in 1969 were located deep in the Atlantic Ocean using sophisticated sonar equipment.

These were recovered with private money.

Mr Bezos used private funds to raise the F-1 engines from their resting places 4,267 metres below the surface of the ocean, even though he has maintained that they remain the property of NASA.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden welcomed the news.

“This is a historic find and I congratulate the team for its determination and perseverance in the recovery of these important artefacts of our first efforts to send humans beyond Earth orbit,” he said.

“We look forward to the restoration of these engines by the Bezos team and applaud Jeff’s desire to make these historic artefacts available for public display.”

Buzz Aldrin, second man to walk on the Moon, is a skeptic. When he was ambushed by a moon-landing denier, he punched him.

Neil A. Armstrong,  Michael Collins, and Buzz. Aldrin Jr. 1969

UPDATE: I hear a rumor that because the serial numbers are eroded it’s not possible to confirm exactly which rocket they were attached too… wait and see. (Thanks Anton and Snafu).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (56 votes cast)
Apollo 11 engines found and recovered from 4km deep, 9.1 out of 10 based on 56 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cab5z4b

339 comments to Apollo 11 engines found and recovered from 4km deep

  • #
    Otter

    It is too bad that video on Anthony’s site is no longer available. I had been wondering if the moon-landing denier was lewandowski. Buzz punching a kid….!
    Might explain why lew never grew up.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Brett_McS

      “Buzz Aldrin punch” brings up plenty of youTube videos of the same incident. From the ones that start from well before the actual punch it is clear that this turkey was trying to get Aldrin to punch him on video. Which demonstrates how much of an idiot he is: What jury would convict Buzz Aldrin of assault?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Quack

      he probably thinks it was planted there!!!


      Report this

      20

    • #

      To put this in context, the LOG12 survey paper was titled

      NASA faked the moon landing — Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

      Out of 1145 questionnaire responses, there were just 10 that believed in the “NASA faked the moon landing” the moon landing theory. Of these just 3 also believed “Climate change is a Hoax”. Two of those I identified as scam responses – what Steve McIntyre referred to as “superscammers”.
      If you find the video of Buzz Aldrin throwing a punch, also consider the provocation. A guy is threatening to sue the second man to walk on the moon for lying about the greatest day of his life. An event so significant, that the literal “return to earth” lead to alcoholism and the ending of his marriage.
      If you start to understand this aspect, you will also start to understand the real reasons behind the furious bloggers response to LOG12 and not the excuses made elsewhere.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I love this (right)stuff, recently I saw an interesting film documentary MOON RISING now I didn’t know what to make of it but I would appreciate any views from people savvy in this area, or not, the film made some amazing claims that could be seen as fact or fiction and covered the whole “faked landing” theory.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Backslider

      Its bunk… don’t even suggest that the moon landing may have been faked.


      Report this

      93

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Backslider, I don’t believe it was faked and neither did the film, they made other claims of what was found up there, the films creator Jose Escamilla has had scathing reviews and interest too, I found it interesting but thought it would attract the tin foil hat brigade or not? I was just asking for opinions.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Backslider

        Of course, the moon landing was faked!

        Just look at the photograph – the engines are pointing into the ocean floor, so how could they have taken anyone to the Moon?

        See, Lewandowsky was right all along, climate scepticism = moon landing disbelief.

        My apologies, I just could not help myself using some alarmist logic. It is always good practice from time to time to try and think the way the black hatted guys think.


        Report this

        110

        • #
          Richard the Great

          Obviously fake. No ways is this at 4267 meters. The sediments are light coloured coarse SAND which is idicative of shallow marine sediments. At this depth the sediments should be ultrafine darker clay sized particles that would have floated off when disturbed and not landed back in the object. Look at the purple black mussel (bivalve) shell at the broken part of the crater (RHS)i.e. SHALLOW MARINE sediments. There is no growth of sessile marine organisms on something in the ocean for 40 years! go on! pull the other one! The sediments have trace fossils (borings) whereas we know benthonic/ sessile critters at this great depth do NOT bore into sediments. This was hoaxed up one night in 5m of water by clandestine NASA (Never A Straight Answer) AGENTS as the moon hoax is unraveling faster than the great global climate change hoax.

          On the top LHS of the picture one can see the FOOTPRINTS of the person who placed this there. Case closed.

          FAKE FAKE FAKE as was the moon landing as is CLIMATE change

          Did I make your day, Lew?


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Ace

            Dont thumbs up this clown….hes obviously making fake posts to TRY to make it look like AGW scepticsareparanoid nut-jobslike the AGW cult themselves are.

            Tell us this….if the Moon landings were faked, how come a JAPANESE lunar orbiter photographed the landers on the landing sites surrounded by footprints. Tell us what kind of robot landed on the moon and ran around on human spacesuit shoes will you.

            HOW COME…the staff and pupils of Kettering grammar school in England were all bin on the conspiracy?

            HOW IS IT that astronomers around the world have over the decades since routinely bounced lasers off the instrument package that had to be manually set up on the lunar surface to facilitate that.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Ace

              ………..OK…so you are being ironic, I geddit. bBUT…AGW proponents will treat your comment literally, which is why I have to do the same. Remember, Leftist arse-parts have neither a sense of irony or any sense of humour.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Richard the Great

                Ace- you must be having a bad day. I supposed you missed the image of Elvis in the sand as well…maybe I was too convincing but I can’t believe you though I was serious for one minute.

                I love it when warmists fall for this kind of cr@p. The joke’s then on them- as it alawys is.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                Conspiracies are emotional things as is being accused of believing in them when you don’t. LIke most things near and dear, any hint (real or imagined) is usually met with extreme prejudice! Ace is just doing what people do. I’d cut him some slack!


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            Richard the Great, on 17 March 2013, several dozen F1 engines were found at Albert Park in Melbourne. The valves were quite distinctive, being filled with sodium metal. There were confirmed measurements of high fuel consumption and about 5 zillion cheap digital camera images captured of anything that moved nearby, including the remnants of carbon footprints. Of course it’s not fake.
            How many F1 engines do you need to tell a story?


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Colin Henderson

      I thought the people on this blog were above the average warmist and could construct a scientific argument. Finding an F-1 engine in the ocean is proof that an F-1 engine was in the ocean and not proof that anyone landed on the moon.


      Report this

      67

      • #
        Ace

        Just what I thought, but there ARE Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists who deny that manned spaceflight has taken place. I saw one dickhead (billed as a “retired rocket engineer”) on TV argue that because a rubber glove expands inside a vaccuum tank (he had built one to demonstrate this) the same thing would happen to a space suit glove in space and there for pictures of astronauts on EVA were all fake!

        Of course, Saturn Vs flying doesnt prove they had passengers either. What is hard for a Moon Hoax Loon to explain are many things involving third-parties to the mission. All the school-kids and staff of Kettering grammar school in England woulld have to have been part of the conspiracy. They were in regular communication with Apollo crews en-route to and from the Moon. Then theres the fact that astronomers have been bouncing lasers off the selenialogical instrument package left by Armstrong and Aldrin, EVERY DAY since they were set up on the lunar surface in 1969.

        But the really irritating thing about the Looney Lunar Hoax brigade is that their hypothetical mass conspiracy would be far, far harder to accomplish than…well, going to the Moon!

        Its simply Occams rule.


        Report this

        71

      • #
        agwnonsense

        I have seen Independent Photo evidence of 2 landing sites.I have no doubt they went to the moon,at least twice.Realistically the US does not have a very good record of telling the truth.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        RoHa

        As far as I am concerned, the best argument for the reality of the moon landings is that the USSR acknowledged them. NASA could probably have faked the video, sent a robot radio and TV transmitter to the moon, and so forth, and fooled the rest of us, but I don’t believe they could have fooled the best scientists of the USSR. You can be sure that the Soviets examined every detail to get technical information for their own space programme, and if they had spotted a fake they would have said so. Proving the landings were fakes would have been a glorious propaganda coup for the USSR.


        Report this

        130

        • #
          crakar24

          Apollo 11 left laser retroreflectors on the moon so we here on earth could measure the distance between the two.

          What more evidence does one need to prove Apollo 11 atsronauts actually landed there?


          Report this

          104

          • #
            crakar24

            OK who gave me the thumbs down? Be honest here and show your hand and tell me why you decided to give me one. I would be extremely interested as to know why.


            Report this

            53

            • #
              Heywood

              One of the resident trolls no doubt.

              Personally I don’t think we should be discussing anything to do with moon landing hoaxes. It just gives [snip] like Lewandowsky and Cook ammunition.


              Report this

              80

              • #
                crakar24

                How are you Heywood, i suspect you are right, no matter what evidence is presented they cant shake that religious belief.

                And yes i agree L & C will be watching and looking for material for their second attempt at deconstructing the mind of a denier.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                Re: [snip]

                Awwwwww. I thought it was an accurate description. ;)

                I’ll let the readers insert their own adjective then.


                Report this

                30

            • #
              agwnonsense

              The question is not, Did they Go, it is how many times.When the Japs photographed the surface of the Moon 2 landing sites were really obvious not 6. Think about it.


              Report this

              21

            • #
              Speedy

              Crackar

              My theory, backed up by an extensive 15 second research programme, is that the thumbs down came from by Prof Lew, thus proving that the overwhelming majority of climate alarmists (97%) could be moon landing deniers. And I have a dodgy survey and a mathematical model to prove it.

              Argue if you will.

              Cheers,

              Speedy


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Ace

              I didnt, but if I had it would have been because you plagiarised MY earlier point!

              If you deny it that makes youa DENIER!

              So get out of that.


              Report this

              10

      • #
        Backslider

        As I told another troll on this thread:

        Admit it. You are just a warmist troll trying to make it look like there are moon landing deniers among us. Did Lew send you or was it John Cock Cook?


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Ace

          We should do it on their sites. And a lot besides. They pretend they dont believe in conspiracies (only oil cheques) so how can they accuse us of hatching one!


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Richard the Great

        No no no. The Apollo 11 took off and had a rendezvous with a Soyuz craft who took Buzz and Co back to the studio in the Nevada desert for the photo shoot. The other half of the Soyuz craft then continued to the moon with the forced “conscript” Cosmonaut who had by then accumulated 1000mSv radiation from the van Allen belts and was dying so he never made it back after EVA. So it was really the Soviets who went to the moon first as the Saturn V was not powerful enough to do so as the Saturn V rocket engine was really a weak Saturn 1B thruster than the middle engine was never USED due to RESONANCE issues. The bit about seeing aliens on the moon crater ridge was a red herring false broadcast by NASA to mislead the conspiracy theorists from the TRUTH.

        This engine proves it all.


        Report this

        90

    • #

      I’m too cheap to pay to view the entire film, but the web page basically presents a bunch of blurry photographs and claims these blurry spots are objects. There is also discussion of the color of the moon and photos to look at. Much of what goes on is photographic angles, light, etc. It’s super easy to create images like those on the website. I have been known to watch such shows (usually on the inappropriately named “history” channel in the USA) as Ancient Aliens because it’s fun to figure out how many theories can be created out of the same facts. It’s a mental exercise in theory construction and then picking apart the theories.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Backslider

    These guys were my heroes when I was a boy, had them plastered all over my bedroom wall (take that Lewandowsky!!).


    Report this

    151

  • #
    handjive

    No sightings of Trenberth’s mythical ‘missing heat?

    At 4 KM deep down, it’s a travesty!


    Report this

    220

  • #

    The last man on the moon (so far), Harrison Schmitt is also a sceptic. I guess it must have been difficult to get a job as an astronaut without having a grip on reality.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      John Brookes

      What, he’s not convinced that he landed on the moon? That is heroic skepticism.


      Report this

      336

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Where is Oliver K Manuel??
      He probably designed the engines??
      Lol…
      Moon deniers…. Lol….


      Report this

      22

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      The sixth man on the moon (so far), Edgar Mitchell is also a sceptic – a skeptic of the widespread belief that UFOs are nothing more than hoaxes. I guess it must have been difficult to get a job as an astronaut without having a grip on reality.

      I post this link without prejudice simply to highlight another Apollo veteran’s view of a matter of allegedly global importance.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Check out ufodigest website. There are a lot of die hard climate change believers writing on there. Meaning 1. Climate change belief and belief in other phenomena are not related or 2. There are a lot of irrational people who believe in climate change and we should stop listening to the climate change people because their followers are lacking a grip on reality.

        (It’s interesting to note that the website on UFOs allows both sides of the issue, unlike some climate change advocates sites. Guess UFO people have nothing to fear like climate change people???)


        Report this

        00

      • #

        While we are on the subject of UFOs, using the usual argument from appropriate authority, an astronaut is a considerable authority on flying machines, as are pilots. Should they not be given more credibility than, say, the average man on the street? Sure, there are no peer-reviewed studies, but when looking at a complex subject, the experts are what we are constantly told to listen to. Pilots know about flying and what’s up in the sky and astronauts have been in space. Authorities.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I have a book “First Man” by James R. Hansen (not to be confused with the James Hansen whose middle initial is E) which is the authorised biography of Neil Armstrong.

    The chapter “First Out” which I recently read again is most fascinating because it describes in full detail the story behind the decision as to who would be the first to set foot on the Moon. Until I bought the book a few years ago it had never occurred to me that it was even an issue. I’m sure most people who watched the landing live on television just assumed that Neil Armstrong did it because he was the mission commander. However, Buzz Aldrin embarked on a protracted campaign (and even his father couldn’t keep out of it) for the honour of being the first.

    Anyone looking for a good read, I recommend tracking down this book.

    This news of the engine recovery is indeed significant. The Moon landing hoax version wouldn’t have any engines to find, would it?


    Report this

    121

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Neil Armstrong was the only astronaut at the time who was a civilian. Since he was well qualified for the job he was made mission commander and designated to be first on the moon because he was a civilian. The decision was purely a political one — and a good one — to avoid any appearance of militarization of the mission or the moon.

      I don’t know how well this is known but as they approached the surface they saw that it was too rough and would wreck the lender. So Armstrong took over and scooted along the surface, burning his precious reserve fuel to find a safe place. He finally found what he needed and landed with something on the order of 30 seconds remaining on his engines. He then calmly announced, “Houston, Tranquility Base here, The Eagle has landed.” But I’ll bet his heart was pounding away like a jackhammer.

      If you’re a pilot and have flown very long you’ll have had one of those scared spitless experiences and know what I’m talking about. Armstrong was truly a pilot’s pilot — right up there with Sully Sullenberger.


      Report this

      150

      • #
        Joe V.

        So Armstrong took over and scooted along the surface, burning his precious reserve fuel to find a safe place.

        You make it sound so matter of fact Roy. How could he do that ?


        Report this

        30

        • #

          and yes Joe, that’s exactly what he did.

          Tony.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Joe,

          He did it because he had no choice. You’re just out for a nice relaxed Sunday afternoon drive with the wife and kids until something starts to go wrong and then you earn all the salary ever paid to every pilot in the world in possibly the space of a few seconds. It’s what being a pilot is all about.


          Report this

          110

      • #

        Armstrong was truly a pilot’s pilot — right up there with Sully Sullenberger.

        and I suppose the remarkable ‘Tex’ Johnston as shown in this video, barrel rolling a 707.

        And probably the best of them all, Chuck Yaeger, who actually flew into space in a Starfighter (F-104) before the limits of space were mutually changed to 50 miles in an agreement between the U.S. and Russia.

        Tony.


        Report this

        120

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Absolutely!

          Actually it’s possible to barrel roll any airplane no matter what it is. If you know what you’re doing it’s, as Tex says in the video, a one g operation all the way around and unless you’re looking out the window or watching the instrument panel you wouldn’t know it was happening.

          You can safely roll a Piper Cub, a 747 or 787. On the other hand, don’t get caught because the FAA will yank your license, possibly permanently.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            Annie

            What about an Airbus A380?!


            Report this

            40

          • #

            Roy, that’s because the FAA is totally paranoid about safety, and rightly so when it comes to airliners. Smaller airplanes are treated like airliners because the FAA is a government operation that believes in the one true law: one size fits all.

            I’m an aerobatically-trained CFII, MEI who tries to be objective about the whole controversy.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            crakar24

            Well to be fair whilst it might be possible to roll an A380 it was certainly not designed to do so. If you did then you would be operating the aircraft outside its design specs hence the FAA would frown you using that AC again unless you pulled the AC apart and inspected the frame for cracks etc.

            Cheers


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Albert

              Surely an A380 would roll inside the design specs but the onboard computer sets limits on what the pilot is allowed to do.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Well to be fair whilst it might be possible to roll an A380 it was certainly not designed to do so.

              Crakar,

              You’ve missed the point I think. There is no design consideration necessary for the airplane to safely do a barrel roll. As I said, the occupants can’t tell it’s happening when done right. What I didn’t say is that the airplane can’t tell it’s happening either. When the occupants feel only one g, so does the plane feel only one g. It’s straight down through the floor as if you were in level flight. It puts no stress on the airplane outside its normal operating envelope.

              An aileron roll is a different story however.

              ——————-

              Albert,

              The on-board computer might indeed balk. But if I remember right, they finally (and wisely) figured out that the pilot should always be able to override the computer.

              If someone is a better expert than I am and I’m wrong, please set me straight.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Ace

          The X15s were doing it routinely well before Yeagers effort. That was the NC104, just a fighter with a rocket up its ass. The X15 was a true spaceplane with a reaction control system for use so high the control surfaces didnt function.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Getting off topic, but there is an interesting video here, that shows a left hand flight circuit from Ardmore Airport in Auckland, New Zealand, from the cockpit of a Mosquito, in the company of a Vampire and what looks to be a Hurricane.

          Who says we are not up with the latest technology? :-)


          Report this

          90

          • #
            MudCrab

            Spitfire actually, but nice vid :)


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Ace

            That vampire wont get much blood out of a poxy mosquito, whats he thinking?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            FijiDave

            Rereke, thanks for that pointer. I get goose bumps when I hear a Merlin, and blinkin’ moa bumps when I hear two of them!

            My Dad did 58 hrs 50 minutes during 25 ops in Mozzies with 487 Sqn flying mainly EG A & EG J (they have given the Mozzie in the video 487′s call letters EG, and Y). Dad also did 67 ops in Wellingtons with 75 (NZ) Bomber Sqn.

            I would give a lot to get a seat on the starboard side….

            Jo, pse forgive the OT :)


            Report this

            40

            • #
              Backslider

              Have you ever seen the Lucky Kaiser?

              A dude sliced two pots off a Rolls Royce Merlin and jimmy’d them into a motorcycle frame.

              I first saw it at the Centennial bike rally in Canberra years ago. Should have see all the Harley dudes fall over when they fired this baby up :D

              Pic below, if I am lucky:


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              I get goose bumps…

              Me too, just thinking about how much I wish I could get back in the cockpit. :-P

              Either he was too slow in some of those turns or the stall warning is much too sensitive. Anyone else notice that?


              Report this

              00

              • #
                FijiDave

                Roy, the hooter is warning that the landing gear isn’t down, which, at those low revs would be a very handy reminder. He’s throttled back to formate with the Vampire and not cruise through Auckland in 2.8 seconds :) .

                Just had this and a couple of Nanchangs fly over my house not ten minutes ago. Certainly added a fillip to my lunchtime sarny.

                I haven’t seen an Anson since I played in one when I was a kid pretending I was a Bomber Baron.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Dave,

                The warning only happens in a turn. It behaves much more like a stall warning because in a turn he would bring the stick back to increase his angle of attack enough to maintain level flight. The stall warning is sensitive to angle of attack and goes off just before you start to exceed the critical angle where the wings stop flying and you can’t maintain altitude.

                That’s why I think it’s the stall warning. :-)

                I love those old war birds. My favorite is the B-17. There aren’t many of them flying anymore, just a couple left that are airworthy. There’s also one flying B-29, or was as of a few years ago.

                All those old planes cost like the devil to keep flying. It’s a labor of love like no other. And when the current generation of pilots who care about them are gone, those birds won’t fly anymore. The world will move on and forget the old planes and their pilots.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    Anton

    Are you sure that these are really from Apollo 11 rather than one of the other Apollo missions with Saturn-5 rockets?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Snafu

      According to the Today Show segment I saw this morning, atm they are not sure. But, each piece has a unique serial code stamped on them. So only time will tell.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      They had a lot of dummy runs, I seem to remember. There must be a awful lot of hardware sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Just to have one that actually flew is quite an accomplishment and a valuable piece of history. But I think NASA did track, or tried to track where each one went down. So there may be a good chance of finding the one you’re looking for.

        It will be priceless if it’s from Apollo 11.

        From the pictures it looks pretty bad off from long submersion in salt water though. I hope the markings are still legible.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    How could you all be so naive? These artefacts were obviously secretly removed from the secret studio in a secret part of the Dakotas by the CIA and secretly placed on the ocean bed to be “discovered” by someone secretly in the pay of Big Government. If you watch the scene from “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, where they put the ark in that secret warehouse, the Apollo engines are in a crate just visible in the distant right-hand side, next to a crate containing Mann’s raw hockey-stick data.


    Report this

    260

    • #
      NoFixedAddress

      and underneath the crate with Mann’s raw hockey-stick data, and you have to look closely, is that poor little bugger that crashed at Roswell…. you can just see his little claw waving feebly….


      Report this

      120

  • #
    Snafu

    There was a great (short) segment on this mornings Today show. Hopefully I remembered the quotes right. Please, correct me if I’m wrong.

    1) A single F-1 engine produced more thrust (power) than all 5 engines on the space shuttle…including boosters.

    2) The Saturn V had five F-1 engines!

    3) The F-1 engines fuel was kerosene.

    4) NASA are thinking of building a new rocket. Their first choice of engine is based on the F-1 design.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      Len

      That is power kerosene.


      Report this

      31

      • #
        Snafu

        Just done a Wiki search;

        S-IC first stage

        …Most of its mass of over two thousand metric tonnes at launch was propellant, in this case RP-1 rocket fuel and liquid oxygen oxidizer…

        RP-1 rocket fuel

        RP-1 (alternately, Rocket Propellant-1 or Refined Petroleum-1) is a highly refined form of kerosene outwardly similar to jet fuel, used as a rocket fuel. Although having a lower specific impulse than liquid hydrogen (LH2), RP-1 is cheaper, stable at room temperature, far less of an explosive hazard and far denser. RP-1 is significantly more powerful than LH2 by volume. RP-1 also has a fraction of the toxicity and carcinogenic hazards of hydrazine, another room-temperature liquid fuel. Thus, kerosene fuels are more practical for many uses.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          Len

          Cockies used to use it in their tractors. Start on normal petrol then switch to power kerosene


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            The fuel used by the military in Europe contained a red dye, to stop the ground crew from putting it in their cars. If you were caught with a pink carburetor, you could be in serious trouble. It made the private sale of cars, a rather protracted process.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          After basic safety issues, energy density of the fuel is what counts, both for the big long haul jets and space flight. Every extra pound costs you precious payload.


          Report this

          50

        • #

          You may think it strange that I knew and understood the relative merits of using kerosene as a rocket fuel … even before I got to high school. My grade 7 teacher was kind enough to let me sit next to the shelf with the (World Book) encyclopedia and didn’t mind it if I spent most of “art” class leafing through the volumes. The local (town) library got to know me and pointed out when there are any new books on aeronautics, etc. Sometimes they’d let me even take an extra book out on loan.


          Report this

          100

          • #
            Backslider

            I was the same when I was a boy. My dad bought a set of World Book and I would spend hours in my bedroom reading them… later in life my sister began calling me “The walking encyclopaedia”.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          Ace

          Most of the regulars here could tell you all that without the Wiki. Its an age thing.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          DavidC

          Some brilliant high-speed cam footage and soundtrack to the Apollo 11 ignition and lift-off at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rXtG3vfAlA.

          Awesome!!


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Ace

      All the current NASA spacecraft designs are configured around a “J2X” which is simply a re-build of the J2 also used on Apollo. An engine designed over half a century ago.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      braddles

      Not true. The Saturn V first stage had a bit more thrust than the shuttle (7.6 million pounds to 6.8), but only by combining the five F1 engines.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Given that we all believe the moon landing was a hoax, according to Lewandowsky, does this mean Buzz Aldrin also believes the moon landing was a hoax? Or is Buzz lying about his climate skepticism?

    Inquiring minds would like to know.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      cohenite

      This is a good point Eric; if Lewy and the Cookie monster had been fair dinkum they would have asked the obvious people to comment on any connection between the Moon landing and AGW; that is the Moon astronauts, all of whom are sceptics!


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    Just think — we lauded these guys as heroes because of their supreme and historic accomplishment on behalf of mankind.

    Now the heroes we are supposed to admire are people who turn off their TV and sit in the dark for an hour accomplishing precisely nothing during ‘Earth Hour’.

    How far we have fallen, and how quickly.


    Report this

    300

  • #
    Snafu

    How good are your computer speakers?

    Apollo 4 (unmanned) launch

    Apollo 17


    Report this

    30

    • #
      cohenite

      Awesome. NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration; that is what it should be doing; instead it has been hijacked by Lilliputians like Hansen who diminish human endeavour.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Brett_McS

    “you are a liar and a coward and …[BAM!]“. So good.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Speedy

    There was a Mythbusters episode where they went through the moon landing hoax stuff. Everything they tested lined up with the very simple theory (refer Occam’s razor) that these guys did actually land on the moon.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    50

    • #

      “Fact or Faked” did a show on it, too. They went with “not faked”, but because of the number of people who would be involved more than anything. (I’m just pointing this out, not saying “Fact or Faked” has credibility.)


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Gee Aye

    are you saying that moon landing deniers are as self serving as holocaust deniers


    Report this

    113

  • #
    warcroft

    With the technology (not) available at the time, it was impossible to fake the moon landing.

    This video, from an entirely different perspective, explains why it could not have been faked.

    http://youtu.be/sGXTF6bs1IU


    Report this

    71

    • #
      Albert

      Thanks for sharing, brilliant video


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I don’t believe that it could be successfully faked today either. There is no technology that could fake those scenes on the moon and not be detectable. Computers are good but not that good.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Oh I don’t know about that. It’s almost possible to fake it in realtime.
        Have you seen how realistic the graphics are on computer games lately? List 1. List 2. Crysis 3.

        If you have 50 times realtime time available for rendering, forget it, it’s indistinguishable from a real video. Have you seen any movies lately? Life of Pi. Inception. Link. Link. More Links.

        Even in Matrix 3 a few years ago, one of the actors died during production but they were able to still make her character’s final scene with Neo on the park bench using CGI. Can’t say I ever noticed it wasn’t a real person in the cinema – on a 12 metre screen.
        Similar thing with Brandon Lee who died during The Crow, but the fakery was not quite as good in the mid 90s.

        Aside from the moonwalk video, the other reason it couldn’t be faked is that the Russians would track the spacecraft all the way to the moon and back with radar. Tricky to have the video appear to come from the spacecraft dish without a ground-based source being detected. Almost easier to do it for real than fake it.


        Report this

        41

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Andrew,

          You make a strong case. I can only say that up to now I’ve always been able to see the subtle differences between the computer generated and the real stuff. One particular area of difficulty is in making computer generated humans or aliens act sufficiently individual. You can also notice subtle differences in the way they move between the real and the computer generated human. Sometimes it’s quite good but other times it’s really obvious. If you’ve ever watched a scene where an actor is supposed to pick up something heavy and it’s actually quite light you’ll know what I’m talking about. The mechanics of the thing just don’t work.

          But I must admit that they’re very good at it right now. :-)


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            yes that was one reason I said “almost”. Character animation has been a let-down in games and movies for a long time and even today can be a bit spotty in places. As you say, even if motion-capture is used on a real body double it is not going to make a light object look like a heavy object.

            Some scenes in the movies Iron Man 2 and District 9 were also very convincing, but its games that have had the greatest need to create CGI humans so that’s where the best examples are.
            To get any more real in realtime they will have to use AI and some robot motion algorithms. Just another 5 years and this stuff will break out of the lab. After that point you may not be able to believe the nightly news.

            Actually you can’t believe the nightly news even today, but for quite different reasons. ;)


            Report this

            10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Actually you can’t believe the nightly news even today, but for quite different reasons.

              Much of the nightly news isn’t even worth believing. It’s become another bad reality show. ;-)


              Report this

              00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            I know old thread, but… here’s a new face modelling/rendering demo from Activision.

            A new game play preview for “Battlefield 4″ has just come out and the graphics are amazingly real now, almost like watching a soldier’s helmet cam (or better).
            All in realtime. The way characters switch between scripted motion-capture sequences and realtime reactive AI just adds to it.

            There’s some other random game previews here but nothing as impressive as above.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Old thread or not, I think I would believe that talking head if it was presented in a realistic scene and just speaking as what ever was going on required.

              Battlefield 4 is impressive too. But did you notice around 8:30 into it there are several bad guys getting a fatal shot at close range and they fall like actors instead of dead guys? A “dead giveaway”? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

              I would rate the physics simulation as first rate. But some things, like surface texture being too uniform and a little too simple, are a clue that it’s simulated.

              I don’t know if you have any graphic programming experience. I’ve only a little myself and it’s all oriented toward graphic data display in real time — everything color coded according to signal intensity, that sort of thing, on a moving surface plot. But I learned real quick that surface detail is where the compute time is required. Even the much less complex stuff that I had to do chews up compute power very rapidly as you increase the detail in the scene. Even using all the hardware capability of a much more powerful GPU than was proposed for the job and having a quad processor at 2+ GHz barely allows it to handle data as fast as we hope to finally achieve.

              The original GPUs make it impossible to use the graphic hardware computing power because of lack of memory so it must all be done in the CPU for them. It’s slower by a factor of 2 because of the limitations.

              All that said though, it’s impressive stuff. Do you have any specs on the hardware required to run Battlefield 4?


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                It’s funny you should say uniform textures were a giveaway because I thought exactly the opposite. The semirandom grubbyness of the scenes made it look pretty decent. Maybe there was a few walls or barrels that could be a giveaway if I’d been looking for it especially.

                I have only a bit of OpenGL hobbyist experience from a decade ago. Keep meaning to get into OpenCL but never seem to get around to it. Hard to get motivated when its a solution in search of a problem.

                B4 Specs? Sorry, none to report. I’d love to know myself, since I am only a week away from ordering parts for a whole new PC. Recommended HW Specs are usually quite closely guarded until nearer the release date, which is not until “Fall” (a northernism) presumably October-ish.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                It’s funny you should say uniform textures were a giveaway…

                A clue, yes but not proof. If I was handed a still shot out of that video at the right place I might easily conclude that it was real.

                When you order that new PC put in all the horsepower you can. I suspect something else will come along before long that will need it even if B4 doesn’t.

                OpenCL is something to tackle when you’re bored and want a challenge. I actually dodged it when my boss said go ahead and use NVIDIA’s CUDA GPU computing platform instead. But the problem is the same — take a computational process that you and I think of as being done sequentially, like matrix multiplication (a pretty simple example) and turn it into something where all the work can be done by very simple steps, all of which happen in parallel. When you’ve done that you have it licked.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              …almost like watching a soldier’s helmet cam (or better).

              Definitely better because you aren’t actually being shot at.


              Report this

              00

    • #
      warcroft

      Ok, who down voted the video I posted?
      Someone here is a moon landing denier :p


      Report this

      21

  • #
    Paul R

    I have less of a problem with the Apollo missions than I do the D word.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Tim

    I’m sure there’s many who survey this site, looking for loonie comments in order to give them some PR opportunities, as in ‘wacko deniers also believe Moon landing was a hoax.’


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Peter Miller

      Tim

      Like the ABC and BBC, those comments will be carefully edited to prove scepto-loonism is alive and well.

      Lewandowsky will doubtless use these edited comments for proof in his next ‘research’ paper.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Joe V.

    The Moon Landing.

    Ouch ! There can be little doubt about that one.

    Here’s with more of the buildup, showing just how inevitable it had become.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    To this day one of those Saturn engines is on display in front of the plant where they were designed and built in Canoga Park, California. Driving by it the first time is quite an experience. You are struck with one realization — they are huge monsters, far bigger than you would believe from the view usually captured on film or TV. The next thing to strike you is that the first stage was as big in diameter as five of these things arranged as close as they could reasonably be put, one in the center with the remaining four equally spaced around it.

    Actually seeing one of these engines puts the magnitude of those missions to the moon into perspective. The whole lunar lander, engines, fuel, everything, ready to descend to the surface would be roughly similar in size to one first stage engine.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Lars P.

    Interesting, if we go down to the points the warmista say, we see they deny any natural variation. For instance when I look at the hockey stick old and new. With all that smoothing they remove any natural variation and add in the end the stick. And this is what they believe in!

    In their “science” all the Bond events, the 8200 event, the MWP, Roman Warming did not exist. When pressed by evidence they try to say these were localized events. Not global. It took long time to have all data gathered to show the MWP was global, but they still deny it.
    Who are the deniers of natural climate variations? The answer is clear, warmistas. As these natural climate variations cannot be modelled with their models, they do not want to accept what the data says, but yet they project their denialism on CAGW-skeptics.

    If we take the stalling of the temperature, measured by all temperature tracking groups. Warmistas deny it. Even with all data fiddling and adjusting there is already a decrease in temperature. They deny it. But again they project their denialism on CAGW-skeptics who do not deny anything but ask to validate the models against real data.

    99% from warmista support the idea of big oil funded skeptic denier machine. Where is that money? They invent absurd connections. This is a clear case of conspirancy theory.

    On the other side the CAGW skeptics know who the warmista are and show clearly the funding machine of the warmista, that is clear, not abusrd connections and inventions.
    And what do warmistas do? They project their conspiracy theories on CAGW-skeptics.

    Now looking at the above and the moon-landing story and all these projections am asking myself if L&C are not actually moon landing deniers? This would actually perfectly fit to their behaviour so far.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      Speedy

      Lars

      Guess what? I could have modelled the entire earth’s climate on my old IBM XT computer way back in 1982, and it would have been just like the climate guru’s told us! Over 30 years later, and with billions of government aid, using the best of the available supercomputers, the climate scientists still come up with the same answer. What’s the conclusion?

      Answer: Scientists like money.

      Cheers,

      Speedy.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I could have modelled the entire earth’s climate on my old IBM XT computer …

        I dispute that.

        I am not questioning your modelling capabilities, far from it. But the IBM XT had a known memory leak that required it to be re-booted at fairly regular intervals. So I would question whether you would have had sufficient time between “Blue Screen of Death” events, for the program to complete? ;-)


        Report this

        60

      • #

        This didn’t seem right so I checked.

        It was released as IBM Machine Type number 5160 on March 8, 1983,

        my source is impeccable!


        Report this

        01

    • #
      Backslider

      Yes, there is no doubt who the real deniers are… and conspiracists to boot (“You work for BIG OIL/COAL!!!”)

      Might go hunting some moon landing deniers among them… I would not be surprised to find.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    policycritic

    Can someone explain to me how Nixon would radio to the astronauts on the moon during daytime (when the moon was on the other side of the earth) if the same radios wouldn’t work between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans?

    Could never understand that at the time.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ace

      Because of the Deep Space Tracking Network.

      Todays equivalent is the TDRSS.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      How do you know the moon was on the other side of the earth?

      Its’ position is not governed by day/night time which is a function of the earths rotation relative to the sun, but rather to its own orbital periodicity around the earth.

      So it is quite reasonable for the moon to be visible from earth in the daytime.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Ace

        Rereke, a redundant argument, answer above.

        PLUS the fact that Nixon didnt the feck radio from the bleedin Whitehouse…doh. He was connected by telephone, innit.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      andyd

      That’s the sun you’re thinking of. No wonder you’re so confused.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    michael hart

    The chief architect, Wernher von Braun, also fulfilled the same role with the V2 rocket, though his first love was reported as space travel.

    From Wiki: ‘Satirist Mort Sahl is often credited with mocking von Braun with the paraphrase “I aim at the stars, but sometimes I hit London”.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun


    Report this

    40

  • #
    JunkPsychology

    “I just send zem up
    Who cares vere zey come down?
    Dat’s not my department,”
    Says Wernher von Braun
    –Tom Lehrer


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Ace

    This find is really amazing. But it strikes me that (as you would expect) theres little left aside from the exhaust nozzle.

    I wonder if anyone will ever locate the Mir or Skylab space stations. They are in the Pacific though (deeper I think). I believe they are in a designated area for ditched spacecraft. A kind of space graveyard, like the one J.G.Ballard invented in a story once.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ace

    I am totally a child of the Space Age. Partly explains my bitter attitude to the state of the West today. But the astronauts were never “heroes” to me, just guys doing a job, more akin to laboratory payloads than pilots.

    Wernher Von Braun, on the other hand….

    Although there were other rocket pioneers (Goddard in the US, Tsander and Koryolev in the USSR) it can I think be argued that the entire era of manned spaceflight is almost totally down to WVB. Before WW@ spaceflight wasthought impossible. a crackpot fantasy from that Russian dreamer Tsioltosky. One thing changed that. The A3 / V2 missile. That weapon was the foundation of both US and Soviet space programmes. It was only built because one man, WVB, was sufficiently obsessed with exploiting the circumstances of the Third Reich and Hitlers delusional power madness to clandestinely pursue dreams of a spaceflight. Hitler was hooked into squandering huge resources on a weapon that (with only 1 ton of amytol as warhead) was of very little utility.

    WVB made manned spaceflight possible.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Ace

      …AHEM…corrections:
      “ww2″ and Tsiolkowsky.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … a weapon that … of very little utility.

      It had tremendous utility as a psychological weapon, which was what Hitler saw it as – hence the name “Siegwaffe”, or Victory Weapon.

      At the time, Germany was the only country with that technology, and Hitler thought that the British would surrender since they had no effective defences against the V2. German radio was broadcasting propaganda that claimed that Germany would bombard England with thousands of V2′s if it didn’t negotiate for peace.

      I have spoken with people who were living in London at the time, and they told me that the V2 was the worst weapon they had ever encountered, because you simply had no warning of an attack.

      The rocket, on its decent, was travelling close to, if not faster than, the speed of sound, so nobody knew they were coming, and there was no chance to take cover. The actual explosions appeared to be spontaneous.

      Fortunately, the early guidance systems were not that accurate, and one report claimed that more cows were killed by V2′s than people. But that could also be propaganda, who really knows?


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        My mother phuh, told me about the V2. The ton of explosive was almost secondary, as the carcass of the rocket moving at above the speed of sound picked up so much energy that the destructive effect was as great as the warhead, There would be an enormous explosion, followed by a roar like a fast train which gradually got fainter as the sound caught up with the event. Life in London in the last days of the Reich got very fraught indeed until the launch sites were overrun by the allied ground forces


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Ace

        FIVE times the speed of sound.


        Report this

        20

      • #

        It had tremendous utility as a psychological weapon, which was what Hitler saw it as – hence the name “Siegwaffe”, or Victory Weapon.

        Your inaccuracy is embarassing. The Vergeltungswaffe (literally Vengence/Retribution Weapon) was a propagandist designation.

        The most complete and accurate history of the weapon can be found in Walter Dornberger’s V-2, der Schuss ins Weltall – Geschichte einer grossen Erfindung; later (1954) published in English as simply V-2. You can read between the lines why that weapon failed to change the tide to Germany’s favour. Basically; a bunch of nincompoops kept telling the leadership what they thought the leaders wanted to hear, burned up resources (including vital technical staff) in ineffective pursuits and distracted from real issues.

        Of course, sane people wouldn’t have gotten the country into such a mess in the first place. But with the majority silenced by bullies, insanity can prevail.

        Now, can you tell of which country and time I’m writing?


        Report this

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Your inaccuracy is embarassing.

          Well, I shall stand corrected.

          I was quoting my undergrad military history studies, from memory, of what our lecturer told us, so I am quite prepared to bow to your superior knowledge. It was a very long time ago.


          Report this

          30

          • #

            Memory is a good starting point. But I like to live by my motto of “Trust is good, checking is better” and with the Internet, one can check details quickly.

            I was surprised by how far your original comment was off the mark. I suspect that the “history” being taught was akin to homogenised climate data.

            The term “Siegwaffe” seems to be used only for the super-weapon for “final victory”; a nuclear bomb. And such a weapon was beyond Germany’s technical means after 1941. German researchers (including Heisenberg) had “miscalculated” the critical mass required for a sustained chain reaction; they were out by several orders of magnitude.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Thank you for the clarification.

              In trying to convey the psychological impacts of the V1 and V2 attacks on London, I obviously became confused with the multiple attempts, during 1942 and 1943, to prevent Germany from acquiring sufficient heavy water for their atomic research. That is probably where the word, “Siegwaffe”, entered my brain, and then became conflated with the “V” designation of the V2 (implying “victory”, in English).

              “Trust is good, checking is better”. I agree, and I live by that, but it is also good to have others provide quality assurance, from time to time. By our mistakes, we learn. :-)


              Report this

              00

        • #
          Ace

          No Bernd. as I said above.they were NOT “nincompoops” .they were men of vision who exploited the NAZI leadership to realise the very first step and foundation spaceflight. The rest of what you say (the money was squandered by being spent on, in effect, a clandestine space project) only supports my case. Several engineers were actually imprisoned by the NAZIs for “dreams of spaceflight”.Wernher Von Braun beavered away on making those dreams a reality whilst outwardly concealing his purpose, pretending he was designing a weapon when in his mind it was all along a space-vehicle, whilst at the very heart of the NAZI ganster-system. He in fact held his life in gritted teeth for a decade. And guess what…he won HIS war…by overseeing project Apollo and landing men on the moon.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            You’ve misread. The team under the leadership of Dorenberger was under-resourced. Despite lobbying by Dorenberger, von Braun and others since 1938, it wasn’t until 1944 that the replacement of traditional artillery with rockets was recognized as imperative by the GröFaZ (abbreviation for the German that translates to “Greatest Field Commander of all Times”). Until that time, there was no priority of obtaining the necessary resources, including essential tradesmen. Chief procurer, Albert Speer wasn’t fully “on board” at any time during the war.

            Meanwhile, the nincompoops had sent the necessary tradesmen (electricians, fitters and turners, mechanics, etc) to the Russian front, consumed materials to build steam trains that couldn’t run because the railway network was bombed to pieces every day. The GröFaZ wasn’t even pleased in 1940 to hear advice from senior Luftwaffe field officers that Fortress Europe had no roof. Instead he relied on the assurances of a morphine addict, who was later to become known as Reichsmarschall Meier, that no bombs would every fall on Germany. That, even after the Reichsmarschall’s Luftwaffe failed to finish off the enemy at Dunkirk; with overwhelming German ground forces held back to let the Luftwaffe demonstrate its power.

            Germany poured resources into stuff declared as “essential” by manufacturing conglomerates and many pet projects of dubious merit. So they built bombers, steam locomotives, monster tanks and other “wonder weapons”.

            It wasn’t a complete waste. The Soviets grabbed about two-thirds of the immature inventions while others scrambled for what was left, using e.g. Operation Paperclip to ensure that the Soviets wouldn’t get the top people for the inevitable Cold War to come.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Ace

              But…you are missing the point. They …WVB et al, all former members of the Deutsche Racketen Verein or whatever it was called (the amateur rocket society) NONETHELESS obtained development of the A4 / V2 that could never be justified in purely military terms and which drained resources from the other more sensible uses such as the need for air defence that you refer to. Peenemunde was a colossal dirt up project dedicated to the development of the A4 / V2, The thing WAS built, in spite of it being militarily a waste of resources, it WAS manufactured, squandering more resources, using slave labour at Nordhausen in a colossally expensive underground facility built for the purpose. This was all achieved by WVB and his pals under his guidance knowing full well that their real objective was to demonstrate the possibility of spaceflight. Which the A4 / V2 did, and which may well never have happened otherwise. Remember, according to such “scientific” authorities as the Royal Society of the time, spaceflight was considered literally impossible. When the V2 was first seen in aerial photographs it was interpreted as being a 46 ft long torpedo!


              Report this

              00

              • #

                It was far from an amateur rocket society. Von Braun had signed up to to join the team led by Dornberger to develop rockets for use as military weapons in late 1932. (Which was before the Enabling Act.)

                Essential research was conducted mainly at the Army weapons research centre at Kummersdorf; established in the early-1930′s. A-1 and A-3 liquid-fuelled rockets were fired successfully from there. The Versailles treaty prohibited Germany from having heavy artillery. Rockets were to circumvent that limitation. Other rocket weapons were developed at the same centre. The Soviets deployed rocket weapons much more effectively (vis e.g. Katyusha) than the Germans … because the Soviets “aimed lower” in their expectations of military rockets; until they got their hands on V-2.

                Peenemünde already had an Army testing facility before A-4 development was moved there, having out-grown the size of the Kummersdorf facility. It was also more isolated.

                Production of weapons at Mittelwerk was in caverns enlarged/extended for the facility. Much of the completed and incomplete stock at the factory when it was over-run was transported to the USA. Operation Backfire by the British employed V-2 techs (and Dornberger) to fully document the assembly and operation of the weapon, including test-firing from Northern Germany (Cuxhaven) with missiles made from what could be found in the devastated Western Zones of the country, after the Americans had plundered from Mittelwerk.

                Massive delays in deployment of the V-2 weapon was also due to the tactical mindset of Army commanders; who wanted the missiles fired from “magazines” in massive bunkers; very much like a first-world war articllery barrage; but at much longer range. Those grandiose plans also included underground factories for assembly of the weapons. And they started building those installations.

                Dornberger’s preference (and that of others with tactical nous) was for mobile launchers (Meilerwagen) that were drawn by trucks and could launch a missile within a couple of hours. In the reality of war at the time, with Allied air superiority, that was proved to be almost invulnerable to counter-measures by Allied forces. The launchers were gone by the time that rec’ce photographs had been developed.

                The guidance systems on early rockets was just adequate to get the rocket to crash in about the right place. The final systems developed and tested were accurate enough to hit a small town at the limit of range; provided the rocket was set up accurately. Guidance was entirely inertial and a rocket with high-g loads isn’t exactly a good place to be operating precision instruments. Implementation of what we now refer to as PID controls was in its infancy; so tiny, accummulated errors resulted in big misses.

                Fuel was a problem in Germany. The V-2 used ethanol. The “kerosene” produced by the synthetic fuel plants was barely adequate to run the new jet fighters. And it was in short supply.

                Although some regard the resources put into production of the V-2 as a waste, those resources did not substantially compete with the production of more conventional weapons. The rockets didn’t need pilots to bomb a city … The USAAF was carpet-bombing rubble until the end, trying to hit targets. The RAF had started bombing Germany in the dark. They hit the country. Then they set fire to cities of no more tactical value. So all those bombs, planes and men were just as much of a waste.

                Germany had tactically lost the war in the summer of 1940. They had failed to appreciate the magnitude of early victory. And their victor’s mentality and racial politics quickly made enemies of potential allies in occupied territories. Many Germans even knew that the war was lost by 1942; following the first Russian winter. Only a fanatic minority clung onto the fantasy of victory. Unfortunately that minority were psychopaths and their worshippers; with weapons, unshakeable belief and no conscience.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    You gotta feed the monster.
    Per:
    http://www.apollosaturn.com/facts_figs.htm
    ====
    “The F-1′s fuel pumps push fuel with the force of 30 diesel locomotives.”

    “The five F-1 engines equal 160,000,000 horsepower, about double the amount of potential hydroelectric power that would be available at any given moment if all the moving waters of North America were channeled through turbines.”


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    One thing that strikes me from reading these comments is the passion and respect for technology and achievement, I had the same reaction when watching “James May on the moon” a while back and I think the main message was when we abandon the pursuit for innovation we risk going backwards, which certain people would want.
    The further development and cooperation in space travel can only be a good thing for us.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    JFC

    Wow, “moon landing deniers”. Harsh. Jeez Nova, I think you just lost half your readership!! Or maybe more?


    Report this

    118

  • #
    KuhnKat

    Without wanting to get into an argument on either side, “Hey, Moon Landing Deniers… here’s an interesting tid-bit and an epic project.”

    The fact that we launched a vehicle assembly, or numerous vehicle assemblies with the potential of landing on the moon, into earth orbit proves NOTHING about whether we actually landed on the moon or not. In fact, those engines don’t even prove they put anything into orbit!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    Report this

    112

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Ive always regarded the shuttle missions as our best observational evidence for the likelihood of the actual moon landings. The shuttle is a logical extension and improvement of the technology, you can go watch it take off and unless there is a genuine global conspiracy over where it goes (space or a secret base on earth), its reasonable to conclude that the work the shuttle does(did) is complex enough to lend credibility to the assertion of the Apollo program outcomes.

      But everyone is entitled to their opinion.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Backslider

      Admit it. You are just a warmist troll trying to make it look like there are moon landing deniers among us.

      We are not that stupid, unlike yourself.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Ace

      I reckon we should all go to their warmist web-sites and post fake LoonDeniakl messageslike that one above. See how their Google results show that later.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Read Chuck Yeager’s biography a few years back. Amazing man also, just kind of “dipped out” a bit on the space glory as his career was ending as the real space work was kicking off. But its fair to say he was a pioneer of the pre-space/moon landing work and deserves at least an equal mention. Truly inspirational man. Read the book if you can.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Dave N

    Most “skeptics” focus on the Apollo 11 landing. Apparently the other 5 (12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) were all proven “fakes” by association.

    Sheesh.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    crakar24

    Christine Milne claims “climate change is accelerating”

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/03/germany-coldest-spring-record/

    Once more for clarity Christine Milne claims “climate change is accelerating”

    http://iceagenow.info/2013/03/uks-coldest-spring-1963-claims-5000-lives/


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ace

    Actually the Apollo doubters are very entertaining in the range and degree of ignorance they display for us.

    No, Im not being sarcastic, I really mean that. Excellent free entertainment.

    Jon Ronson (author of “Men Who Stare at Goats”) had a bunch on a chat show.

    There was the guy who claimed to be a professional photographer (member of the RPS….yeah, anyone can join, dont even need a camera)who said that the lack of stars in the photos meant they were fake! Anyone who knows anything about photography will tell you why. But here was this guy pretending (very pompously) to be an expert photographer.

    Then there was the woman who said the impossibility of going to the moon was known to the Russians and proved by the “fact” they didnt try….er, no? Obviously never heard of the fateful N1 lunar booster project / disaster / disasters or the innumerable semi-crackpot and desperate attempts by Soviet engineers to think of a way to beat the Americans.

    Then they were saying it was impossible to survive outside or passing through the Van Allen belts. Whilst in fact shuttle missions often passed through and outside the South Atlantic Anomaly (a depression in the Van Allen belts).

    Of course, some, not on that show , but as I mentioned, do even believe shuttle flights were a hoax.

    Then there are the people who think “hoax” is plural for a singular, which is “a hoke”. Off topic, but undeniably hilarious. The Donald Sutherland character in “The Puppet Masters” movie says it.


    Report this

    60

    • #

      The soviet sent several, nuclear-powered death robots to the moon. Look up Lunokhod. First wheels on the Moon.

      I still have the beautiful stamps from East Germany, cut from letters sent by relatives at the time.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Ace

        But thats nothing compared to the N1. As big as Saturn 5. Three launch attempts. all failures. People used to speculate what would happen if a Saturn V exploded. “Small nuclear explosion” theydsay. Well the third N1 DID explode. And, yes, it was like a small nuclear explosion..obliterating the launch site and the very apartmwent complex where the engineers lived…with most of them inside. a collossal disaster.

        …AND YET….outside the USSR the very existenceof the N1 was only avaguerumour supported by one scruffy smuggled line drawing.

        ….BUT today, you can watch previously ultra secret Soviet archive movies of the monstrous beast on You Tube of all places. Including the explosion!


        Report this

        10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Gees, they have fooled y’all.

    That’s really just a newly discovered form of coral :-)


    Report this

    40

  • #
    observa

    All those scientists and tech bods at NASA and Houston and the US Gummint and CIA were all in on the big scam and they’ve all played it hush hush until now, but the pressure is too great for some and they’re beginning to crack under the strain so expect the floodgates to open soon. It’s why they’ve got Julian Assange holed up in that embassy lest he spills the whole can of beans. As for that motor being from the moon rocket, it’s really the engine that runs on water that Big Oil are keeping under wraps. Julian knows it, Big Climate knows it, Greens know it and soon the whole world will know it just like Gaia Grilling.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Buffalo Soldier

    Looks like something stomped on the edge or chewed it a bit.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    One last thing from a shuttle pilot:
    http://storymusgrave.com/journal_quotes.htm

    “When the solids light, you are going somewhere, hopefully to orbit.”


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Ross

    Just read on Andrew Bolt’s blog that Climate Change has disappeared as a stand alone Ministry.
    How long before the feathers start flying ??
    I can hear Christine Milne shouting from over here in NZ !!


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      We heard that news earlier this year. It was just going to be a consolidation into another department, but the function still exists so the rort continues.
      The spin put on the news was that it was a more efficient org chart and so would save us money. Hilarious isn’t it. A several billion-per-year punitive tax scheme saving us money.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        crakar24

        Yes Andrew but things have changed, the latest from Milne……….with Ferguson out of the way the greens can now put even more (perceived) pressure on the lame duck and get an ideologically challenged MP to replace him.

        This will pave the way for the two port folios to be combined hastening the permanent closure of Hazelwood etc.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Ross

          Andrew

          I had read about it earlier as being a possibility.
          But the bureaucrats will recognise this for what it is –the first step in reducing its importance.
          I note the Greg Combet who has the portfolio is also Minister of Industry and Innovation. To have those and CC is a rather odd combination.


          Report this

          10

          • #

            Oh come on, the whole climate change thing has been innovated. Quite appropriate.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Okay so basically the news of combining DCC with another department and further merging that department to the same portfolio as industry is surely BOTH a GOOD sign it will be broken up and a BAD sign that the green police will close Hazelwood.

            Well I’m glad we’re all on the same page.

            I’ll be in the kitchen reading my tea leaves…


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Lance

    Congrats on your win Jo!!! (from all the way up in Canada, love to hit your site daily!!
    lance


    Report this

    41

  • #
    pat

    O/T but vital if true. most MSM still avoiding mentioning the 40% figure:

    24 March: Marketwatch: Cyprus, lenders agree bailout deal: reports
    Deposits over €100,000 at Laiki would be frozen and used to pay off debts, it said.
    Separately, Agence France-Presse reported that, as part of the agreement, the country will impose a 40% haircut on Bank of Cyprus depositors holding more than 100,000 euros in their accounts…
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cyprus-lenders-agree-bailout-deal-reports-2013-03-24?link=MW_pulse

    several reports that ATM limit at two banks is now 100 euros. bank runs likely, and not only in Cyprus:

    24 March: Deutsche Welle: Cyprus and Troika come to terms on haircut
    In Cyprus, banks had limited ATM withdrawals to 120 euros per day over the weekend in anticipation of a run on accounts. Cypriots have been restricted to withdrawing less cash every few days since the bank shutdown began 10 days ago, when account holders panicked in reaction to the threat of the “deposit tax.”…
    http://www.dw.de/cyprus-and-troika-come-to-terms-on-haircut/a-16696508

    criminal banksters.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      crakar24

      So it has come to this then Pat,

      We create a banking system that is fatally flawed from the beginning in that the amount owed is more than that in existence (interest charged on money issued).

      Countries like the USA (maybe here as well) give away their sovereign right to issue money to private banks (illegally in some cases, US for example) and after draining every last cent from governments (via taxation etc) they now go directly to the peoples money. Never before has there been a thief more brazen.

      The question i have is what happens next? What happens when they take every last cent, every inch of property what will they take then?


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Streetcred

    So they found an F-1 rocket engine in 4km deep ocean water … c’mon, impress me, did they find the missing heat down there ?


    Report this

    40

    • #
      crakar24

      Funny you should mention it SC, over lunch i knocked up a computer model which can predict the salt water corrosion rates on aeronautical materials, primarly used in the combustion chambers of engines designed to launch a craft into orbit and how the rates are affected by the temperature of the surrounding waters.

      My computer model results show for in order to have such high corrosion rates over this short period of time would mean the temperature of the surrounding waters would have to be at least +10C, therefore Trenberths heat has been found.

      Regards

      Another dodgy climate scientist


      Report this

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Actually SC, the engine was still working (it landed right on a gas seam),

      and this totally explains ALL of the very slight warming that has occured since it crashed.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    This could actually be an interesting exercise.

    They say that people remember exactly where they were on big occasions like this.

    There must be some old(ish) stagers here who would remember.

    So then, where were you when Neil Armstrong actually first set his foot down on the Moon on that Monday 21st July 1969?

    I was at RAAF Base Forest Hill near Wagga Wagga. We’d been back from lunch for almost half an hour, and our instructor, and I actually think it was Sgt Sandy Spring, allowed the 11 of us to go into the next classroom, a large practical classroom which actually had a TV, and with three other classes, we stood around and watched the grainy images.

    Tony.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      FijiDave

      I was standing outside my house filming the moon on a Super 8 camera as a voice intoned from the radio inside, “One small step for man, one giant step for mankind.” I heave just recently transferred the film to DVD.

      Coincidentally, a few years before, Theodore (Ted) Sorensen had stayed with us (my parents) for 4 days. His three boys were my shadow during that time. Ted, apparently, was the one that came from the Oval Office, and said to the gathered journalists, “We’re goin’ to the moon!”

      Nice to be have brushed so close to historical events,eh!


      Report this

      30

    • #

      I was sitting in a classroom in Safety Bay. Watching the TV.

      Later found out about Armstrong’s most widely broadcast “flub”. He had intended to say

      One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

      But dropped the “a”.

      We understood what he meant.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        dylan

        Armstrong thought he said ‘a man’ but apologized for the grammatical error anyways.

        He was likely right. Reanalysis of what records remain about 10 years back showed comms dropped out when he would ha ve said ‘a’.

        From memory the original slow scan tapes were sent to Perth and overwritten by some academic in the 1980s so can never be confirmed.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I was at home, having been granted permission to not be at high school if the family had a TV set. Some children of neighbours came to our house to watch because not everyone had a set in those days. We were all in awe at the historical significance of the occasion. This event had been promised by the Americans for years. That day they delivered.

      I remember the quality of the images was not very good, in contrast to what we saw in shows like My Favorite Martian, F-Troop, Get Smart and Hogan’s Heroes. It didn’t matter.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Snafu

      In primary school. Funny thing is, I can still remember to this day, as clear as a bell, standing out the backyard with my father and saying to him, “I can see the flag dad.”

      Come on…..gimme a break…I was only 8 at the time.


      Report this

      11

    • #

      I was 12. I watched the landing on a black and white TV at home. I still remember it. I loved science and read everything I could about the landing.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Ace

      These are called “Flashbulb memories” a term attributed to U.Neisser.
      Research finds little or no evidence for the phenomenon.

      On the contrary, the more certain of their memories of where they were people are the less reliable the testimony tends to be. Moreover, these types of memory can be “suggested” and a year later folk swear the false memory is true.

      As for the Moon landing…it baffles me that I have no recollection of it at all. I was nine and followed Apollo assiduously, partly via a weekly called “Countdown” (copies are now expensive collectors items).I had many books on spaceflight and received space related presents from my American brother. The documentary record “We Came In Peace”, Nabisco spacefood sticks, that kind of thing.

      So how come I dont recall the actual landing?

      I eventually figured out the answer: I was in bed asleep when it happened.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Ace,

        you say Flashbulb memories, and honestly, I’m dumbfounded that no one actually picked me up on this.

        When I mentioned Armstrong setting foot on the moon, note particularly the date I used, and again, that refers nicely into your second comment, about memory being suggested and a year later folk swear by it.

        The official date of that moment is in fact the 20th July, and I said the 21st July. Note the discrepancy here.

        The date goes by U.S. time, when it happened, and at that exact time, it was almost 1PM on the Monday here in Australia. hence I was in class, and we watched it on TV.

        The same happens with my Kennedy moment. I get odd looks when I mention that I heard about that (as it happened) while playing tennis on that Saturday morning, while the exact time (Dallas time) was late on the Friday afternoon, which was Saturday morning here in Australia.

        When I mention that I was watching the Armstrong moment live on TV on the Monday, again I get odd looks, because it (officially) happened (Houston time) late on the Sunday night.

        With respect to suggested memories, my idea on that is that people look at the (official) time and date and try to guess where they were at that time, when for those of us here in Australia, the time difference makes it anything from 14 to 18 hours later. (our time)

        Tony.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ace

          Nice reply Tony, thanks for that.

          The suggested memories I referred to went something like this (I havent checked as Bernd says we ought but just going from memory): An experinment was conducted with a university class. After a year they were asked where or what had happened when. Some remembered better than others. Some were “corrected” and told they had been some where else or some other thing had happenned. A year later they “remembered” the totally untrue “correction” as though real from experience complete with details that they had never been fed but had elaborated themselves.

          The students were asked to rate the confidence they had in their memories. The ones with the highest confidence showed the least accurate recollection.

          But the last time I read up on that (when preparing to design an experiment on the topic) was now about three years ago. So how accurate my recollections of what I read are I cannot say.

          And I got bumped off that project over a far from gentlemanly dispute about the design of the experiment. That memory I do feel confidence in!

          This does NOT mean we should distrust our memories, but that our memory can be interfered with. There are myriad factors at work in real life.

          What I find fascinating is when an object (maybe even a fairy cake a la Proust) can trigger complete and detailed recollection of something that seems to have been long forgotten. I get this when discovering things from my childhood in charity shops.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            I remember when Kennedy was shot, though I was only 6. However, I remember not because I knew who the president was and what it meant, but rather it interrupted my TV show with the news broadcast. My husband asked why I wasn’t in school (as he was). That I don’t remember. These memories are just one or two frames of the event–i can’t remember more than this small amount.

            If you have siblings and start discussing childhood memories, you may end up wondering if you actually grew up together! Memory is a fascinating thing.


            Report this

            00

            • #

              That Kennedy shooting is when I first started to become aware of the US.

              I was 12 and playing Junior Tennis on that Saturday morning, and there were around 60 to 70 of us spread over 8 courts. Our team was on the court directly below the stand, where our Coach, the man who ran the Junior tennis was in his office.

              A little after 10AM, he came out of his office and yelled for us all to stop. He then told us that President Kennedy had been shot.

              As 12 year old children we were rightly shocked at this, and when the 4 of us on court at that time walked to the net, the first thing we said was ….. “Who’s President Kennedy?”

              We asked Mr Flaxman our coach later and he told us, and how momentous this occasion was, and why it was significant.

              That’s why I remember it so vividly, the first time I had ever paid any interest to anything American.

              Tony.


              Report this

              00

            • #

              Note again how we tend to place the values we accept today on what happened so long ago.

              Today we have the instantaneous news cycle. Not so in 1963.

              Here also is another example of how long news took to travel in those days. While the actual shooting and his death was around 1PM (US CST) Friday, that’s 4AM Saturday morning here in Oz. Most news outlets wouldn’t have been aware of it until they checked when they rolled up for work on the Saturday morning, those who actually worked on Saturday mornings (in 1963 remember) that is. Then they would have to prepare the story for broadcast, so the first most Australians would have known would have been that 10AM bulletin on the radio that Saturday morning.

              That Moon landing was probably the first live TV from the US taken here in Australia.

              Tony.


              Report this

              00

  • #
    pat

    and, if true, criminal pollies:

    22 March: UK Daily Mail:
    Cypriot president ‘warned his friends to move money abroad’ before financial crisis hit: Leader under fire as he faces just FOUR DAYS to save country from collapse
    Italian media said 4.5 billion euros left the island in the week before the crisis
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297383/Cyprus-bailout-President-Nikos-Anastasiades-warned-friends-money-abroad.html#ixzz2OHjoHHC8


    Report this

    30

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Hi Tony,

    I was swimming around in my Dad’s left testicle…

    With about 4 Million other sperms…

    So I missed the Moon landing, but I sure got a great view of another successful landing!! LOL. :)


    Report this

    40

    • #

      So then Edmund, that makes your date of birth some time between April and June in 1970.

      Tony.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      ummm.. and just how do you know it was his left testicle ???


      Report this

      40

      • #
        crakar24

        The right one got shot in the war.


        Report this

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ahhh…. so it was the only one left :-0


          Report this

          30

        • #
          The Black Adder

          Hey Crakar,

          That must explain why I’m left handed!! Lol..


          Report this

          50

          • #
            crakar24

            We have a “science” folder here at work where people can discuss “science” though i use the word “science” quite liberally. I personally have been banned for discussing such topics as AGW, other taboo topics are evolution, Intelligent design and any other topic that raises a discussion so they spend there days staring at hubble photos, debating whether it would be worth your while turning your car lights on if you where travelling at the speed of light….you get the picture, actually right now they are discussion magpies!!!!!!!!!!!

            But now and again a little gem appears and today by chance there was one, spring valley bottle tops have factiods (apparently) and one guy claims that the one he got stated:

            “Right handed people live 9 years longer then their left handed counterparts on average”

            The only response so far was from a guy who postulated (in jest i hope) that this maybe due to a higher than average “can opener incidents”.

            Anyway Black Adder according to Spring Valley you are destined to die earlier than me…………..are you sure it was the right that got shot off.


            Report this

            30

      • #
        AndyG55

        Ok, another question… how the heck were you able to count to 4 million ??


        Report this

        30

  • #
    pat

    25 March: ABC: Climate change a ‘threat multiplier’ for Defence
    A new report from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) says the military is not doing enough planning to cope with the problem of climate change.
    The study, titled Heavy Weather, found climate change was not being considered by the Defence Department in its national and regional strategic scoping, despite the potential regional instability caused by rising sea levels, migration pressures, and the spread of infectious diseases.
    ASPI deputy director Antony Bergin says the ADF has already been stretched by a spate of weather-related domestic disasters such as bushfires and floods, and should be factoring in how it will deal with simultaneous extreme weather events at home and in the region…
    The Government’s 2009 Defence white paper dismissed climate change as an issue that did not need to be addressed until after 2030, but this ASPI report argues that is no longer the case, and the new white paper to be delivered this year needs to embrace a new approach.
    Mr Bergin describes climate change as a “threat multiplier”…
    The report also argues for a permanent climate adviser to be appointed in the Defence department.
    Dr Bergin believes the last few years of extreme weather events has concentrated the thinking on climate change in the military, and that many in Defence now believe the 2009 white paper position is unsustainable…
    Read the full report – Heavy weather: climate and the Australian Defence Force.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-25/climate-change-a-threat-multiplier-for-defence/4591676


    Report this

    10

  • #
    DaveA

    There are various rocket engines in the Saturn-V lunar package, which lead me to ask which exact engines these are.

    Being that there were 5 of them that would make them first stage engines which fell to Earth during lift-off. This is confirmed. The first stage was discarded after approximately 2 and a half minutes of flight and fell into the Atlatic ocean east of Florida. This engine is reported to have been found 640 km east of Cape Canaveral.

    There should be 65 of these out there some where.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    I like the flag flowing in the breeze; someone left the stage door open I guess.

    The fact that no-one has gone back since, what are you kidding? We could do it in 1969, but can’t do it now?! The Russians can’t do it? The Chinese can’t do it.

    There were plans for a moon base, mining on the moon — all stopped. The Jetsons age envisioned by Von Braun — gone, nothing doing.

    The pathetic first images of Apollo 11 projected on to a silver screen in mission control and filmed by TV cameras — why? The original tapes have been lost by NASA so we can’t get a good look at it. How could that happen?

    Neil Armstrong was ashamed to talk about the “moon landings” as were every other Apollo astronaut except Buzz Aldrin. Have a look at the sombre mood in this post-moon landing press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro.

    People claimed Armstrong was just not a communicator. Not so, he would open up completely and proudly about his test pilot days.

    As for the rocket in the ocean, it’s quite simple. There were two mission controls for the moon landing. One was the regular launch control run by NASA scientists and backed up by thousands in the NASA apparatus. This launched the astronauts into low earth orbit and hence explains the rockets at the bottom of the sea. That was all legit.

    Then after the successful launch, a second mission control took over for the moon landing phase. This second group consisted of a small inner circle who were the only ones in the know — they were the other Apollo moon landing astronauts. Thus no-one in the greater NASA organisation had any idea what was going on — it was all compartmentalised.

    I like the photo that shows one guy’s shadow twice the height of the other (see this page). How can that happen when the only light source is supposed to be the sun and shadows are supposed to be parallel?

    Would you like to go to the NASA website to examine all of the anomalies in the photos? You can’t. They are mostly taken down. Gone. Why isn’t NASA proud?


    Report this

    013

    • #
      Backslider

      Listen troll boy. We know exactly who you are and why you are here.

      Just blow off back to the warmist camp where you came from and where some people actually believe your guff.


      Report this

      51

      • #
        Heywood

        Expect to see “Stylo” here counted and categorised by Lew and Cook already, if they didn’t actually plant him here themselves.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        crakar24

        BS,

        I suspect it is Lewbmypolesky and Cock in person, frustrated that we have not given them enough material to plagiarise they have resorted to out right taunts.

        Lets go through the taunts step by step.

        I like the flag flowing in the breeze; someone left the stage door open I guess.

        Possible, but more likely as there is no resistance in space there would be nothing to stop the flag from “flowing” once it is set in motion. Remember “In space no one can here you scream”, or to put it another way there is no medium for the sound waves to travel in.

        The fact that no-one has gone back since, what are you kidding? We could do it in 1969, but can’t do it now?! The Russians can’t do it? The Chinese can’t do it.

        True, we cant do it now but not for the reasons you believe, we cant do it now because we cant afford it NASA has had its budget slashed to pay for the stupid green schemes that you and your buddies have promoted so NASA are now having to go El Cheapo and send robots to planets instead.

        The pathetic first images of Apollo 11 projected on to a silver screen in mission control and filmed by TV cameras — why? The original tapes have been lost by NASA so we can’t get a good look at it. How could that happen?

        To be fair the Americans used NTSC (Never the same color (twice)) so their standard images where crap to begin with which is why most of the planet went with PAL SECAM. Also remember the images where sent back FROM MOON probably via Parkes then bouncing off another sat for the American viewer at home…..you should be thankful you got to see anything. Governments lose shit all the time, we lose crap everyday.

        Neil Armstrong was ashamed to talk about the “moon landings” as were every other Apollo astronaut except Buzz Aldrin. Have a look at the sombre mood in this post-moon landing press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro.

        Ashamed or just sick of listening to your shit? Was Buzz oblivious to the fact that he was not on the moon so therefore was the exception? What is the point here?

        As for the rocket in the ocean, it’s quite simple. There were two mission controls for the moon landing. One was the regular launch control run by NASA scientists and backed up by thousands in the NASA apparatus. This launched the astronauts into low earth orbit and hence explains the rockets at the bottom of the sea. That was all legit.

        So you acknowledge we at least went into LEO?

        Then after the successful launch, a second mission control took over for the moon landing phase. This second group consisted of a small inner circle who were the only ones in the know — they were the other Apollo moon landing astronauts. Thus no-one in the greater NASA organisation had any idea what was going on — it was all compartmentalised.

        Ah in your haste to stitch this up you forgot about Parkes in Australia, wher ethe people there in on this conspiracy as well or did they actually track a spaceship going to the moon, if not please explain how the “wool” was pulled over their collective eyes.

        The rest has just fallen off the back of a cow, good riddance you moron


        Report this

        100

        • #

          Possible, but more likely as there is no resistance in space there would be nothing to stop the flag from “flowing” once it is set in motion. Remember “In space no one can here you scream”, or to put it another way there is no medium for the sound waves to travel in.

          If you can look at that flag blowing around 90 degrees in what is clearly wind and rationalise it as sound pressure, that’s quite a leap, and there’s no helping you.

          As a skeptic, and a huge Jo Nova fan, witnessing this closed mindedness, I can only conclude that it’s a fluke and a miracle that AGW is the one topic you can see through the propaganda on.

          It must be because of your political views that you see AGW for the scam that it is, because it’s certainly not open-mindedness that got you there.

          There are dozens of anomalies and problems with the official story that would take a mere half an hour to research on the internet; but again, that would require an open mind and the willingness to change it.

          So, on a thread that specifically taunts moon landing deniers (like me) I can’t put my point of view on the moon landing, and am told to go away? Fine, I’ll go away and thus your world view won’t be disturbed.

          And that’s exactly the type of treatment AGW deniers like me gets on a warmist site regarding the AGW issue. Disappointing how you are all so two-faced when it comes to debating AGW verses debating the moon landing.

          Oh and calling me “moron”, ad hominem typical of the warmists.


          Report this

          08

          • #
            Heywood

            Moon Landing Denial vs CAGW Skepticism – Apples and Oranges

            There is empirical evidence that the moon landings occured ie. Moon rocks brought back, pictures of the landing sites from modern orbiting probes and even the laser reflector someone else mentioned earlier. We are talking about something that happened years ago, with tangible evidence that it did actually occur.

            There is no empirical evidence for CAGW. It attempts to predict the future using computer models and theories.

            See the difference?

            Your little tanty is playing right into the hands of the two nutcases I mentioned above.


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Backslider

            As a skeptic, and a huge Jo Nova fan

            You really think we are stupid enough to believe that BS?

            We are not. You are a warmist troll, its patently obvious.

            Let me guess, your real name is John Cock Cook.


            Report this

            80

            • #

              A simple click on my name will clarify my views on AGW. I don’t even believe in the greenhouse effect.

              What’s happening is you’re circling the wagons, because you don’t want AGW to be “tarnished” with the stain of kookie-ness that you associate with moon landing denial. Thus giving ammunition to Lew and Cook and besmirching the reputation of AGW scepticism.

              Jo Nova once said the same thing about belief in an atmospheric greenhouse effect. She said she doesn’t want people to discuss it, because denial of the greenhouse effect makes AGW skeptics look silly. I disagree. Your view on one subject has no bearing on another. That’s the tactic the warmists use, for example: you don’t believe tobacco smoke is bad for you therefore your views on AGW are also tainted.

              Me, I don’t care for reputation. If people think I’m silly because I deny the moon landing, I deny the greenhouse effect exists, I think Newton’s gravity is bunk and that there’s an electric universe, and I think 9-11 was an inside job. If that’s ammunition for Lew and Cook to discredit me, then so be it. It’s not about reputation, but about the truth.


              Report this

              08

              • #
                Dave

                .
                Is your star sign Pryex by any chance, Stylo?


                Report this

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                And a short read of some of the links provides this little gem of your mentor’s true ideas..

                “is an example of the type of device which is able to “plug in” to this Free Energy and eliminate the “need” for the continued use of fossil fuels and the consequent destruction of our only home”

                Seriously ??? !!!


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Backslider

                So you are saying that you are just a regular, run of the mill fruitcake who believes anything that sniffs of “denial”? Do you smoke pot?


                Report this

                20

              • #

                You are right that the correctness of your belief on one subject does not affect the truth of your belief on another. Unfortunately, that is only understood by a very small percentage of the population.

                While the truth of any subject is important, there are appropriate places for such discussions. Your own blog is fine. However, I doubt that you actually thought commentors on this blog would jump in and agree with you on the moon hoax, unless this is the first article you have read. Climate change believers have pounded skeptics on this conspiracy thing and people are bit touchy about it,


                Report this

                00

              • #

                @Sheri March 26, 2013 at 7:40

                …Your own blog is fine. However, I doubt that you actually thought commentors on this blog would jump in and agree…

                No. I’m a daily reader of Jo Nova and I expected to be in a minority of 1 on this issue. Usually I say nothing, but I couldn’t resist after Nova taunted moon landing deniers like me with the illogical notion that the rockets actually prove the moon landing.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Got it. However, when commenting on a misplaced notion (the rockets prove the landing) it’s best to counter with direct evidence or logic. Just note that finding part of a rocket ship in the ocean only proves that we found part of a rocket ship in the ocean. The remainder of the belief is actually based on belief in the world around us having a specific order. You will, of course, be asked to explain why you wrote that. However, there are a lot of things in life that we make assumptions on for convenience (like the sun rising tomorrow), so it’s okay to say that’s just being exact in the language. Part of this comes from the intermingling of actual AGW science and other stuff, some science, some politics. It’s not a one size fits all. I’m sure by now you have figured out conspiracies are pretty much taboo on skeptic sites courtesy of the AGW crowd beating the skeptics up for having a wide variety of people read their blogs. (Jealousy on the part of the AGW crowd?)

                I hope you keep reading.


                Report this

                10

          • #
            Ace

            Stylo you are an idiot, the flag was held out at 90 degrees on a fecking manually extended wire, moron, Craker was referring to the ripple. In a vacuum the ripple persists far longer than in air.

            I’ve seen it demonstrated in a vacuum tank.

            Pillock.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Ace

              BTW I DONT want you to go away…you give us the chance to point out your stupid arguments for what they are.

              AND calling you an idiot, a moron and a pillock is not ad-hominem for two reasons: firstly I and others have answered your points before giving up on you and resorting to such terms, Secondly, because in five minutes on Google you could answer your “questions” yourself, but you dont. Even before Google you could find the answers to any of your numb nut questions. I could have answered them when I was nine years old on the very day of the landing. Yet somehow you dont want to know. You prefer to keep your “questions” unanswered. After forty feckin years.

              Yes, that makes you a pillock.


              Report this

              00

            • #

              Of course there’s a wire. No one is saying it is held out by the breeze only. That’s a straw man argument set up by debunkers. It’s about how it behaves, wire included.


              Report this

              00

              • #

                How does it “behave”? The astronaut is twisting the pole to get the flag pole to stick in the lunar soil. It’s not planted in a very sturdy medium, so we would expect some movement of the flag over time. It’s also top-heavy. None of it seems that odd.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                No, I can see that’s how it looks to you. In fact, the flag is moving too strongly for the astronaut to control it. Those cumbersome suits don’t make you stronger, like He Man. In fact, they’re quite a hinderance.

                The suit would make it harder to control the flag, especially by grabbing it at the pole, where it would be very hard to move around given that that’s the flag’s axis or fulcrum.

                The flag moves the man.


                Report this

                00

              • #

                I’m not seeing it. How can a very small object effect a very large human, even in much less gravity?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Backslider

                Stylo – Get yourself a flag and a stick and a bit of wire. Set it up as you see in the video, wire at the top to hold the flag out.

                Now, go into your bedroom and shake that flag on a stick. Watch very very carefully what happens with the flag, no wind.

                Now, imagine how it would be with no atmosphere to give resistance.

                Ok, you did it? What did the flag do when you shook the stick? YES! It flapped, similar to flapping in the breeze.

                Now you can go and get a life.


                Report this

                01

        • #
          Ace

          Better than adducing Australian trackers (and others in the Deep Space Network on every continent) is to cite Kettering grammar school in England. These kids tracked the missions. Were all these English 12 year old school kids secretly in on a major US conspiracy?

          But anyway, the Japanese have photographed the landing sites and the footprints thereat. Which comprehensively settles it.

          Footnote however, there is currently a race called the Lunar X prize to see which PRIVATE CITIZEN TEAM can place a robot on the Moon and conduct an automated mission. One of the goals is to inspect an Apollo landing site.

          This replicates what the Apollo astronauts themselves did when they inspected and recovered parts from the Surveyor spacecraft that had been landed previously.

          The future is not promising for manned spaceflight. The robots can now do what astronauts did. And much more.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        Just explain to me why the flag blows in the wind when the moon is supposed to be in a vacuum. The scene is clearly on earth and not in a vacuum.


        Report this

        09

        • #
          crakar24

          If the flag was “blowing in the wind” in side a hangar somewhere (i assume it to be at Area 51?) then why is there no “moon” dust floating around?


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Heywood

          Educate Yourself.

          Pictures of Apollo astronauts erecting a US flag on the Moon show the flag bending and rippling. How can that be? After all, there’s no breeze on the Moon….

          Not every waving flag needs a breeze — at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who’s set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples — no breeze required!

          And…..

          One of the first pieces of evidence that the conspiracy theorist puts forward involves the American flag. When you watch the footage of the flag, it seems to be moving as if it is being blown by the wind. Now, since there is no wind on the moon–in fact the moon has no atmosphere–it should be impossible for the flag to be waving in a breeze. So how can it be moving? Is it possible that the Lunar missions were part of a hoax and the producers of the hoax made a mistake this big? Or is there another explanation? Well, nothing’s impossible, but given the importance of the Lunar landings it is hard to believe that such a big mistake was made. As rational people, we should not be so quick to accept the waving flag as evidence for Lunar landing fraud.

          US flag on the moon. It looks like it’s moving in the wind.

          Let’s look at the problem carefully. Hoax theorists claim that the moving flag is evidence that the lunar mission was shot in a studio. Now if the footage was shot in a studio we have to again ask ourselves “why is the flag moving?” It takes a lot of wind to move a flag, and there is usually not much wind in a studio. They would need to bring in large fans to make the flag move as shown in the lunar landing footage, and it is unlikely that they would do this because they know that there is no wind on the moon. Furthermore, how could it be that the case that the dust on the ground is not moving if there is so much wind blowing through the studio? Perhaps the fact that the flag is moving can be explained in a better way. Perhaps it can be explained by looking at how objects move in an environment with no atmosphere.

          Notice the frame that holds the flag out.

          In order to spread the flag in an environment with no wind, it was necessary to attach it to a thin wire frame. In the picture above you can see that the top of the flag is perfectly straight. That’s because it is attached to a horizontal wire frame. Now think about how you put a stick into the ground. You push the stick down while twisting it back and forward. This is exactly what the astronauts did. They twisted the pole into the Lunar dust and in doing so they caused the flag to ‘wobble’. Since there is no atmospheric friction on the moon, and since there is a low gravitational field, the wobble of the flag persisted for much longer than it would on Earth. It appears as if it is blowing in the wind but in reality it has retained movement momentum from the action of twisting it into the ground.


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Heywood, It may not be the best example but Mythbusters went to NASA to test a replica flag in their vacuum chamber, twisting the flag with air and without the result was flag moving in both conditions and exactly like the moon footage, but of course Mythbusters is funded by the CIA ;)


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Ian Hill

            Watching the live telecast, I recall the commentators saying that the flag was deliberately made wavy to make it look “normal”. They didn’t want a rigid one.

            A future moon landing will no doubt be made at the Sea of Tranquility to find the Apollo 11 experiments etc and “prove” that it was no hoax, but not while people who watched the 1969 telecast are still around. A blast off in July 2069 would be a good time and the mission could be approved ostensibly as a centenary event.


            Report this

            10

        • #
          Popeye

          Bet you believe in “chemtrails” too.

          And of course EVERY airline and maintenance engineer IN THE WORLD is in on the scam too helping spread those nasty little chemtrails EVERYWHERE. You have got to be kidding – that’s as good as you saying “As a skeptic, and a huge Jo Nova fan,” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          Oh well – guess there’s one born every minute!!

          Cheers,


          Report this

          20

    • #

      So let me see if I’ve got this right!

      Lewandowsky has been wrong all along.

      It’s not us Skeptics who are the conspiracy theory adherents.

      It’s the warmists.

      Oh nyuk nyuk nyuk.

      The irony is just spectacular.

      Tony.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Backslider

        Yeah, but with all the Moon Landing denier trolls here, Lew is gonna say “Look at the conspiracist ideation with them suggesting its us sending the landing deniers!!”.

        Yes, Lew, its just sheer coincidence that these new worms show up like this… like we see the same every day… NOT.

        As I have told you before Lew, you would find it far more interesting to go onto the SkS website pretending to be a CAGW skeptic.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Backslider

        What really annoys me is the way Lewandowsky tries to tie all CAGW skeptics (“climate deniers” ???) with fruitcakes like moon landing deniers, holocaust deniers etc. etc.

        This is all part of the “social consensus” alluded to by Hoffman – that is, if you do not go along with the warmist meme then you will be vilified and ostracised.


        Report this

        40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Oh look Zombies DO exist !!!


      Report this

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      Might be interesting to see when Hansen joined NASA.

      The start of the decline,,, but they still try to hide it.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Key messages for Stylo:

      1. Nearly every line of reasoning you present is anti-scientific because you are trying to defend your beliefs rather than test them. You are trying to find gaps and ambiguities in the official history which do not forbid you believing whatever you want. Instead, if you were serious, you would be trying to find evidence that disproved the official story, because no other theory will be generally admitted until that is done. You have to disprove the null hypothesis – the hypothesis of no conspiracy.

      2. The only evidence you provide to disprove the official story is the astronaut shadows. The shadows of one are longer than another in the photo plausibly due entirely to the rectilinear camera phenomenon of perspective foreshortening. The furthest astronaut shadow is only around 25% shorter on screen than the shadow cast by the nearer astronaut, which can be explained by perspective foreshortening. The hypothesis of a single arc light is at odds with your other hypothesis of multiple studio lights being used. Additionally the hypothesis of multiple lights is disproven by your own evidence since this would create multiple shadows, but there’s only one for each object in every photo available.

      3. Despite having access to decades of “conspiratorial ideation” on this lark your best effort has been unable to find a single good reason to disbelieve history. Don’t waste our time trolling. Go away, don’t come back.


      Report this

      60

    • #
      Snafu

      The original tapes have been lost by NASA so we can’t get a good look at it. How could that happen?

      Just like NASA’s GISS archives.


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Reminds me of Ancient Astronaut theorists. Ask a bunch of leading questions that COULD be interpreted in such and such a fashion and hope people just skip right along that bunny trail after you. Actually, conspiracy theory is a great mental exercise–to see far you can stretch reality in your head without inflicting permanent damage. Just be sure you stop in time.

      It’s time to run outside and check for chemtrails…….Wait, it’s 8 degrees out so maybe….I vaguely remember cold and vapor and light refraction and……My head hurts.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Stylo,

      There is one thing which all by itself makes all your “moon landing is a fake” evidence a total crock. Literally thousands of people would have been in on at least part of the secret. All those people would have had to be steadfastly silent for a minimum of 43 years now, some of them longer.

      Do you know what the odds against that really are? I don’t think so. A whistle blower could make a small fortune if the case for fakery could be even minimally documented.

      Various other conspiracy theories have this same problem. Think about it. The U.S. Government can’t even keep highly classified national defense information from leaking even though there are heavy prison terms for any breach of security, even if accidental. How much harder would it be to contain the, “Scoop of the Century,” that the moon landings were faked?

      But you still want to make the case for your cause don’t you? Were you actually interested in the truth you would find and examine the various rebuttals to your silly claims and conclude that you’re wrong. So either you don’t want to understand or you can’t understand. And either way you show yourself to be a fool. :-(


      Report this

      11

  • #
  • #
    Dave

    .
    Here’s the video of them bringing up the F1 bits:

    Jeff Bezos F-1 Engine recovery.

    And here’s a nice picture of the F-1 on the deck.

    Heaps more pictures at the 1st link.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Darn, that’s remarkably well preserved. Guess there isn’t much oxygen down there to cause corrosion. And no other creatures that can actually attach themselves


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Dennis

    Australian Navy working hard: BOARDER PROTECTION


    Report this

    30

  • #
    MadJak

    Well that does it, there is no way they could’ve made it to the moon if they lost a whole thruster in the ocean. It’s just far too far away.

    And besides, the thruster is in the ocean – not on land – The rocket would’ve sunk into the ocean if they tried to launch on the ocean.

    Oh, and 97% of marine experts (aka the fish) don’t believe it happened either

    /sarc


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    25 March: SMH: Bosch dumps solar business as losses mount
    German engineering company Bosch said it is abandoning its solar energy business, because there is no way to make it economically viable amid overcapacity and huge price pressure in the industry.
    The solar power industry has been hit by falling subsidies, weaker sales and increasingly stiff price competition, especially from Chinese manufacturers. Robert Bosch GmbH’s move, announced at the end of last week, came after German industrial conglomerate Siemens announced last October that it would give up its loss-taking solar business.
    Bosch said that it will stop making products such as solar cells, wafers and modules at the beginning of next year. It will sell a plant in Venissieux, France, and is abandoning a plan to build a new plant in Malaysia.
    The solar energy division, which employs about 3,000 people, lost around €1-billion ($1.25 billion) last year…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbon-economy/bosch-dumps-solar-business-as-losses-mount-20130325-2gpo4.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    for jo, with source:

    24 March: SilverDoctors: Gold Bank Run Begins? Dutch Bank ABN Amro Halts Physical Gold Delivery!
    The Cyprus/ Eurozone crisis has just intensified, as Dutch Bank ABN Amro has sent a letter to clients this weekend informing them that they will halt extradition and physical delivery of their clients’ gold holdings effective April 1st!
    No worries however, Amro ensures its clients that there is no need to panic or do anything rash (such as remove your phyzz prior to April 1st:…
    Forget traditional imminent deposit bank runs in Cyprus, has a physical gold bank run begun?
    http://www.silverdoctors.com/dutch-bank-abn-amro-halts-physical-gold-delivery/


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Richard

    Hi Stylo

    Some interesting reflections in your post. The ‘flag in the wind argument’ is probably the most common objection you’ll hear. But it’s a bit vague and conjectural, isn’t it? No-one has ever before taken a flag up to the moon, so no-one can say for sure how it may behave. More compelling evidence I’ve seen comes from shadows being cast in opposite directions thereby suggesting multiple light sources when only one should have been present and the same exact scenery in shots when NASA says that they were taken miles apart, inter alia. A very short video cataloguing some of these apparent disparities is called ‘Moon landing 1969 vs. Scientific evidence’. It’s very short, as I say, but interesting. It’s a shame your posts have come under such attack here.


    Report this

    26

    • #
      AndyG55

      Its just bad timing, coincidence, that he comes along with this while we know that loony Lewy, and his tame cartoonist, are trying to link AGW skeptics with conspiracy theories, particularly the “Moon landing was faked” one.

      Just coincidence. ??

      Of course it is. !! ;-)


      Report this

      41

    • #

      I know — the attacks are identical to those the warmists dish out to skeptics. To their credit, some of the above commenters did try to debate points; but most used classic warmist attacks like name calling and guilt by association. (E.g. I believe in free energy, therefore all my other ideas are stupid.) Every other day of the week I’m their skeptic buddy; but today it seems I am the enemy, and I get the “treatment”.

      I did go into it with an open mind, and the more I researched the more inconsistencies in the NASA story I found. For example the original lunar lander had rubber air-filled tires. Someone saw this in the Apollo museum and pointed out that these would expand and blow up on the moon. They were hastily replaced by empty steel cage tires.

      Have a look at this photo. The flag is just planted there after the fact — there is no shadow.

      Take a look at this photo. It’s in Apollo 16 and is of the Duke family (one of the astronauts). It’s a laminated photo. The surface of the moon is supposed to be hot, so that photo would have curled and melted. The space radiation would over expose and fade it. And the air in the lamination, minute though it is, would blow up and pop like a bubble in that vacuum.

      Heywood (March 25, 2013 at 5:12 pm) had some points to make which I address here:

      The photos of the landing sites taken recently occurred in the post-photoshop era, that’s not enough on its own, I don’t trust NASA on that. The moon rocks are from Antarctica and consist of meteorite impregnated material that’s then baked in a radioactive oven.

      The laser reflectors are completely unnecessary (and highly impractical at that distance) — they were bouncing radar off the moon to accurately determine its distance well before Apollo.


      Report this

      02

      • #

        “Lunar lander” should read “lunar rover”.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Doesn’t the shuttle have rubber, air filled tires?


        Report this

        01

        • #

          Yep. You put about 32 psi in your car tyres. Will they blow up like a balloon because you put in 47 psi(don’t drive it like that – they aren’t designed for it)?

          The tyres on my aircraft don’t swell when I go to 10,000 feet(only about 10 psi atmospheric pressure. I know because I can see them out the window.

          Can we get a grip here folks? Moon landing deniers FFS. No problem explaining why 32% still vote ALP.

          Stylo, you are a complete whack job. Richard too.


          Report this

          12

      • #
        Heywood

        Stylo,

        “The photos of the landing sites taken recently occurred in the post-photoshop era, that’s not enough on its own, I don’t trust NASA on that.”

        The subject photos were taken in 2008 by the the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe. NASA had nothing to do with it. SELENE also had a terrain mapping camera which reconstructed the terrain view of the Apollo 15 landing site, which was a very good match to the original photos taken.

        “The moon rocks are from Antarctica and consist of meteorite impregnated material that’s then baked in a radioactive oven.”

        The moon rocks brought back by Apollo were analysed by NASA and other independent labs and they all confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar. They also had the same properties as the lunar samples retrieved by the USSR via their Luna program. They THEN used this data to confirm that meteorite debris from Antarctica was of lunar origins.

        You are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, but consider this,

        How, after all these years, did the tens of thousands of people involved with NASA, manage to keep the ‘hoax’ a secret for so long? We are talking over 40 years now, and not one whistle blower. It’s not like they still have research grants to protect.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Richard,

      I started watching that video, “Moon landing 1969 vs. Scientific evidence,” and soon gave it up. The claims don’t match what I was seeing. Can no one understand basic mechanics? Can no one perform the simple mental transformation to what will happen under lower gravity and no atmosphere conditions?

      Please! I’m appalled!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Sorry, that was another one that I started watching.

        The one in question is about picture quality from Apollo 11. When you don’t understand the conditions under which Apollo 11 flew you get this kind of objection; the picture should be much better and since it’s not then it’s evidence of fakery.

        Do you know anything about the digital technology of 1969? The resolution of any digital camera of the day was terrible compared with today. But what makes it even worse is getting the necessary bandwidth to send back a clear signal in real time from the moon. More bandwidth, better picture! But the greater the bandwidth the more energy is required to transmit the signal. And the lunar lander was on a very limited energy budget. As I remember it the only good clear pictures from the moon were taken by conventional photography and developed after return to earth.

        It might benefit this debate to know just how primitive (and marginal) our moon landing operation really was. The computers on the lunar landers were smaller and slower than the very first PCs ever produced. The truth is that they could barely keep up with the computational load. I have heard, though I haven’t verified it, that on more than one mission, including 11, the computer went into alarm state (computational overload) on the way down. These nice quad CPU 2.6 Gigahertz Intel processors we enjoy now were simply not available then and if they had been, their power consumption might have been a problem.

        Those were the days when the mini computer was just appearing and the smallest of them was too big and too heavy for the job. Integrated circuit technology was in its infancy. The very compact, high speed electronics we enjoy today were not even a viable dream when the Apollo missions flew. There were no cell phones, much less smart phones.

        On the Apollo 11 descent, corrections to the on-board computer program were passed to the lander by voice to be keyed in manually to correct a programming error. Ah! The joys of doing it for the very first time with your life hanging in the balance.

        It’s nice to sit back and play Monday morning quarterback. You can second guess those who were there and got the job done all you want to. But you were not there, apparently don’t have a real clue about what they actually had to work with and then you want to find fraud because the first pictures from the moon in real time were not what your imagination says they should have been. And if it’s not that it’s shadows or flag waving in no atmosphere, ad infinitum.

        Isn’t it time to give up this childish conspiracy and get on with life?

        And one more question: If fakery was the objective, why fake Apollo 13?

        I’d like to hear a good answer to that one.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ace

          Not even digital. There was no such thing as digital imaging until the eighties. Those were just primitive vidicon tube cameras.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Ace,

            I believe you are right about the live video from Apollo 11. But perhaps I can be forgiven for that slip-up because there actually was digital photography being done at that time. I was to a small extent involved in several of the projects that were doing it so I have first hand knowledge on the subject. It was incredibly primitive by comparison with today but it was digital photography.

            Either way, however, the bandwidth problem is the limiting factor. And they did improve the quality on subsequent missions. :-)


            Report this

            00

        • #

          The computers on the lunar landers were smaller and slower than the very first PCs ever produced. The truth is that they could barely keep up with the computational load. I have heard, though I haven’t verified it, that on more than one mission, including 11, the computer went into alarm state (computational overload) on the way down.

          The processor overload error 1202 was real. NASA transcript at 102:38:26 mission time: Far too exciting for comfort.


          Report this

          10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Interesting how Armstrong thought he could safely free fall to a landing from as high as 40 feet but the engineer says 10 feet was the safe limit. I wonder how much safety factor was built in.

            I’m glad we didn’t find out the hard way which number is correct.


            Report this

            00

            • #

              Perhaps Armstrong considered a structural failure of the lander platform to be acceptable. After all, only the ascent stage was needed to catch the Command Servive Module back to Earth.

              Horizontal velocity on contact would have been a bigger concern than vertical.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                It may be as simple as forgetting the right number.

                As a pilot I don’t think I would voluntarily accept structural damage on landing when I know the same machine I landed in has to get me safely back home. There’s no way to be sure the damage would be limited to the descent stage or even that it would remain upright.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I guess no one can give me an answer to, why fake Apollo 13?

          I’m so-o-o-o-o-o disappointed. :-(


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Okay, Roy, I searched the appropriate sites and the answer is “Ratings”. People were bored after Apollo 12–we had made it to the moon. So NASA filmed a moon shot that was more exciting. That was the most common response.


            Report this

            00

            • #

              I know and they even hired some very expensive actors to play the roles


              Report this

              00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Sheri,

              OK! You got me. ;-) Funny though how Jim Lovell, the mission commander could write a book about it years later and remember all the details perfectly. And even more puzzling how the other two crew members could remember the same details and never get them wrong.

              Well, so much for what I know. But the really hard thing to fake is the astronaut’s personal thoughts and emotions as revealed by what they’ve said and written. Those are hard to fake! Why fake a crew member with a serious medical condition developing and go through all the detail of how incapacitated he was becoming and the note he put on that critical switch to remind him not to flip it accidentally at the wrong time? This was either a soap opera or it was real.

              I can smell a soap opera a mile away. And this ain’t one of ‘em. :-)

              ——————

              You bunch of doubters don’t measure up to the character of the least of these men who had “The Right Stuff.” You don’t go to the moon yourselves but you can hound a man who did until he can’t get relief except by punching one of you in the face. As much as I wish that punch had never been thrown I still have to say, it was well deserved.

              You disgust me!


              Report this

              00

              • #

                IF I were to answer from the conspiracy buffs view, I would say the book was written ahead of the time, the astronauts were really actors that were well compensated (think of all the money NOT going to the moon saved), they all have the same details because actors can memorize scripts really well. Actors fake emotions all the time. The medical condition added drama and gave a feel of reality that would not have otherwise been present.

                That’s IF I was arguing that view. :)


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Then maybe the whole thing was a fake from Kennedy’s speech in 1961 to the very last moon landing. The Saturn engine they just dredged up from the bottom of the Atlantic was a plant and all that video of launch pads with “tall buildings” leaping into the air was just computer simulation. After all, the camera position was too far away to be sure it was real.

                I always did think something that big could never get off the ground. And rockets don’t work in space anyway. They don’t have any air to push against, ya know. :-)

                See, now you’ve convinced me! Nuts! ;-)


                Report this

                00

              • #

                Yes, you are definitely catching on to this! ;)


                Report this

                00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          The computers on the lunar landers were smaller and slower than the very first PCs ever produced.

          At one stage in my career, I worked for IBM Research in California.

          One of the senior researchers there, was previously a member of the programming team for the Apollo Project. This team worked at the machine language level using Assembler, and they apparently spent hours looking for techniques to change the way calculations were performed so that they could save one or two bytes of storage space and/or reduce the number of data movements (into and out of registers) to improve speed.

          According to him, most of the original engineering design for Apollo was done on the same suck-it-and-see basis. Very gung-ho.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Rereke,

            I suppose we’ve beaten this to death by now. But having been through those days of limited memory and limited speed I’m not surprised at the story your colleague related. I’m not even surprised at this.

            According to him, most of the original engineering design for Apollo was done on the same suck-it-and-see basis. Very gung-ho.

            They were stuck way out in front of the state of the art doing something for which there was no prior experience to lean on until they made it themselves.

            That there were only the two disasters, one on the launch pad and one in space is a tribute to the thousands of people who put their hearts as well as their minds into the space effort all the way along.

            Behind every astronaut who flew, there were thousands who worked in the background to make it possible. They get no public recognition and they really should. Without their commitment to the job we wouldn’t know the name’s, Armstrong, Aldren and Collins.


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Ace

      Not just fecking idiots, but functionally-blind space-wasters who go about their daily / night-time affairs without ever noticing that THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH SHADOWS EVERY DAY of YO FECKIN LIFE.

      How can someone go through their entire life and not even notice such bloody obvious features of everyday existence.

      Waste of space.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Nice One

    So it’s ok to call moon-fakers, “deniers”, but those that wish to ignore heat accumulating in the oceans under 700 meters .. that’s off limits is it?


    Report this

    16

    • #
      wayne, s. Job

      In your own words N,O. Tell us all how this heat is going down to under 700 metres without being found by the Argo bouys and against all known physical processes of heat transfer.

      If it is happening you must have a real scientific explanation, so please tell us, we await for your expose’ it will be most intriguing.


      Report this

      11

      • #
        Nice One

        I’ve yet to see you demonstrate how current OHC figures defy the laws of physics. Both 0-700m and 0-2000m data show warming anomalies.


        Report this

        11

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          And we have yet to see you produce any empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis of anthropogenic global climate change. Without that, all you have is the opinions of a bunch of people who all believe in the same fairy stories.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      N.O. has been told already.

      There is apparently no explanation for how it was decided that buoys showing cooling were designated as “faulty” without actually being checked for faults in the field. The accuracy of the ARGO data published after 2006 is therefore questioned.

      If anybody knows of the precise explanation of the filtering algorithm, or location of raw data as transmitted by buoys before any filtering, please post links.


      Report this

      22

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Bwahahahahaaa….

      700 metres down.. Bwahahahaaa….

      Oooohh… It’s cold down there ain’t it??


      Report this

      11

    • #

      Jo Can you please make application to Troll Central or to Trolls’R Us for some better quality trolls. These ones are about used up. Thanks.


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Nice One

        Its easier to call someone a Troll instead of rebutting their arguments. Thumbs up for people that can’t put together an argument.


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Jaymez

          Nice One, I never did find any scientific explanation for Josh Willis to exclude cooling temperatures other than an assumption that the data was wrong. However I have read two speculations which can easily explain the lack of increase in Ocean Heat Content to 700m and an increase in Ocean Heat content below that depth. Both are plausible and need to be excluded:

          1. The design of the Argo Buoys is that some may become slightly dysfunctional at the greater depth. This as yet hasn’t been tested for to my knowledge.

          2. It is logical that ocean heat content could increase slightly below 700metres in some places in the ocean and not in others, depending on below seabed thermal activity at each point.

          Since the ocean heat content records are more consistent at o – 700 metres, then at this point we should accept that which is not unsurprisingly in agreement with surface and satellite temperature records.


          Report this

          10

  • #

    Richard, a moments thought will tell you that there were two light sources – the sun and the Earth.
    Also the possibility of reflections of sun and Earth from the LM structure. The flag once set in motion doesn’t have any atmospheric damping, only what is inherent in the material itself which may be and obviously was small.
    If you want to indulge in conspiracies see the movie Apollo 18. Done in Blair Witch style. Nice little horror movie with very well done sets, spacesuits LM interior etc. Caused me some nostalgia pangs and sorrow for what might have been.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Richard

    I think explaining the conflicting shadows away as simply light reflected from the Earth would be difficult considering that there are shadows cast (seemingly equal in propagation and darkness) in more than 2 directions. I have not decided whether the landing was faked or not, I just find it an interesting topic to discuss.


    Report this

    23

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    off topic but sadly perennially on topic…

    ABC headline says Perception of carbon tax hits more than hip pocket

    A survey has revealed that most people believe the carbon tax is hitting their hip pockets far harder than official analysis suggests is actually the case.
    It is the latest evidence that the tax is damaging the Federal Government’s re-election chances.

    Best part was the abbreviated headline on their front page: Costly Perception

    That abbreviated headline was a correct summary of the carbon tax situation, but I think the story’s main text could have done with some rewriting…
    A survey has revealed that most people believe the carbon tax and RETs are delivering benefits far greater than observational analysis suggests is actually the case.
    It is the latest evidence that Australia’s education system and political system are damaging Australia’s industry and national reputation…


    Report this

    30

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hmmm Andrew…

      What I find staggering is that 32% of our population can still vote for the Red Dalek!


      Report this

      40

      • #
        MadJak

        Black Adder,

        I continue to be amazed that almost one in three people in the street will still vote labour -even after all of this. It absolutely astounds me that one in three people can be so beligerantly ignorant.

        The people are even allowed to breed as well as vote!


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Bite Back

      My God! Can this be true? People actually don’t like to be taxed?

      A survey has revealed that most people believe the carbon tax is hitting their hip pockets far harder than official analysis suggests is actually the case.

      Surely people will love the carbon tax once they see the benefit of it! The government’s official analysis must be correct. Isn’t it from the government?

      Do I need to say /sarc off?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Julian Flood

    I never thought I’d see an Australian write ‘tidbit’.

    It’s ‘titbit’. Tidbit is prissy American.

    JF
    (Oh, yes, I remember that launch. To me the big one was Apollo 10: the words from the Bible as they rounded the Moon were spine-tingling. And now the Yanks have to buy their launches from the Russians and the UK buys its power from across the Channel to stop the lights going out. I blame the 60s generation. Our fathers went to the Moon. We… err… we… err… built windmills.)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      We don’t even build windmills. The Chinese do that. We just, er…we…er…just assemble them from written instructions.

      We once dreamed great dreams that lifted the spirit. They meant something. Now we settle for wet dreams and pretend they mean something. :-(


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Of course the moon landing was a fake … much as Michael Jackson was a fake and Mann is a fake.

    The real question is not “was it a fake” but “how was it a fake”. And the answer is that it was one huge PR stunt from beginning to end.

    Indeed, it is almost certain NASA are more than delighted to have these “fake moon-landing” stories because it detracts from the actual scam they run. The simple fact is that almost all the rockets in that period went into space for military purposes, yet the gullible public AND YET AGAIN PARTICULAR THE SCIENCES fell for the “space exploration” gumf perpetrated by Holywood as much as NASA.

    Whether it is the fake scare of the Ozone hole or the fake scare of CO2 warming or whatever the next fake scare NASA will use to justify their pointless work, the simple fact we sceptics should remember, is this whole lie machine of NASA is the primary reason we now have people like Hansen concocting the latest scare to justify another space program to “save humanity”.

    [.......and you have evidence to support this theory? - Mod]


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Jaymez

      You are saying that much of the moon landing technology went into military purposes rather than ‘space exploration’ and that could well have been the intention of the ‘powers that be’ all along. That is plausible, though after all these years no-one has ever come forward from the thousands of people who have worked at NASA or the Dept of Defense and said as much. The ozone hole is not disputed, though there is some debate about how much is natural. It is hard to see what NASA would benefit from a fake CO2 scare especially when it probably detracts from any space programme, and many ex NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts are on record as climate sceptics. So I think your theory needs some work Mike.


      Report this

      01

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Mike Haseler,

      As I said above, you disgust me.


      Report this

      01

  • #
    wat dabney

    “These F-1 engines fell back to Earth at 5,000 miles per hour ”

    Is that correct? I’d've thought they splashed down at Earth’s terminal velocity.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      “Earth” does not have a single terminal velocity.

      From memory, the terminal velocity is the speed at which the upwards drag force due to air resistance exactly matches the downward gravitational attraction force. Obviously then this speed is a function of mass, air density, altitude, and object cross-sectional area, and so it will be different for different objects and at different altitudes. For any object, the terminal velocity at high altitude is higher than the t.v. at lower altitude.

      I don’t know if the 5,000 miles per hour figure is correct, but the quote (“fell back to Earth at 5,000 miles per hour”) does not specify at what point in the descent this speed was reached. In the upper stratosphere that speed is possible and maybe it was the maximum speed reached during the fall.

      Yes, I also doubt that they actually hit the water at 2235 m/s. I just can’t be bothered with crunching the maths right now.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crosspatch

    How do you spell “cargo cult”?


    Report this

    00